Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MEMBER SWORN

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:—

Rt. Hon. John Jeremy Thorpe, Devon, North.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NORTH RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL

As amended, considered.

Amendment made: In page 6, line 10, at end insert:
(7) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section, it shall be a sufficient compliance with those provisions for any pleasure boat owned or used by the Scout Association or the Girl Guides Association or their members to display conspicuously on the outside thereof the badge of that Association together (in the case of any powered pleasure boat) with the name of the boat similarly displayed in letters of such colour, character and size as will be clearly legible at all times.—[Sir H. Legge-Bourke.]

To be read the Third time.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS

ABERDEEN EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

FORTH PORTS AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

MALLAIG HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time Tomorrow.

BANK OF SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

FIFE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

MIDLOTHIAN COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

WEST LOTHIAN COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Local Authority Building Programmes

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he proposes to expand the council house building programme; and if he will include using the available compulsory powers under the Housing Act, 1957 where local authorities are cutting down their building programmes in areas of serious housing need.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Peter Walker): In my review of finance and subsidies, I am studying how best to direct help to authorities in the greatest need to encourage them to undertake adequate programmes of slum clearance, improvement and new building for the homeless and the badly housed. I am not at present aware of any occasion for the exercise of default powers.

Mr. Allaun: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. I


appeal to him, now that he has become the Minister, to reconsider and to withdraw his advice to Conservative councils to reject the temptation to go on building houses, otherwise, half the population which depend on them, as they cannot buy houses on mortgage, will be without any hope at all.

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I have never made such a suggestion to Conservative councils. The hon. Gentleman knows that in the circular which I recently sent out to councils I urged all authorities with bad housing problems to continue providing council houses.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the cutbacks in housing made by many local authorities, such as Leicester, were at the express request of the then Labour Government during one of their economic crises?

Mr. Walker: There was certainly a request which affected certain areas. I do not know the details about Leicester.

Mr. Denis Howell: Whilst associating myself with the welcome to the right hon. Gentleman and also his conversion, if that is what it is, on the subject of council house building, may I ask him to comment on his speech to the Westminster Forum, which he did not deny when it was put to him, in which he said that the Conservatives, if elected, would put a curb on council house building? May we take it that that speech can now be forgotten and put into the wastepaper basket?

Mr. Walker: That misquotation of the speech can certainly be forgotten.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will encourage local authorities to increase their building of houses both for rent and for sale.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Government have already announced their intention to refashion the housing subsidies so as to assist effectively local authorities to provide for the homeless and badly housed who cannot house themselves. Building for owner occupation is the function of private enterprise, and save

in exceptional circumstances local authorities will not be permitted to build for sale.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome that statement, but is the Minister aware of the anxiety being caused because of the past Conservative practice of severe cutbacks in local authority building? Will he do everything possible to ensure that that building goes ahead?

Mr. Walker: I am anxious to encourage the building of houses for those currently badly housed and living in bad conditions.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend remember that next to the availability of bank credit, which has been mentioned, the availability of land is the important factor in the private building sector? I hope that he will look at the zoning to see that land is available.

Mr. Walker: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is very much the base of the present housing problem, and already we are carrying out urgent talks on this subject.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proposals he has for the future development of local authority housing; what targets of slum clearance and new building he proposes for each year: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: As already announced the Government intends to refashion the subsidy system so as to concentrate help on those people and areas with the worst problems. I do not propose targets for the entire industry at this stage.

Mrs. Short: In opposition the Minister made a great deal of mileage out of the fact that in our five years of Government we had built only 500,000 more houses than the previous Tory Government built in their last five years. At the same time he was encouraging Tory housing committee chairmen to sabotage the nation's housing effort. There is no other word for it. Does he not think that the House, and, indeed, the nation, deserve a reply to this Question so that we can know what the Government are doing to help those families who are in need?

Mr. Walker: I can understand the hon. Lady regretting the targets of the previous Government. What I made a lot of mileage out of was the fact that in the last year of the previous Government fewer houses were built than in 1964.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Has not the time come to recognise that the whole policy of segregating people physically on council estates is socially divisive and a mistake? Would it not be better in future to subsidise families and not the houses?

Mr. Walker: That is a matter which will generally be considered in our review of the whole housing subsidy system.

Private House Building

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he proposes to expand the building programme in the private housing sector; and if they will include permission to the banks to include loans to house builders in the priority lending list.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Graham Page): We have embarked upon discussion with the builders to discuss ways in which the decline in the building programme in the private housing sector can be arrested.

Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the serious decline in the private sector is due mainly to the fact that small and medium-sized builders cannot get bank loans, and, secondly, that there has been a great improvement in the country's financial position during the last six months which should permit the situation to be altered?

Mr. Page: The availability of bank loans is one of the matters which we are discussing with builders, which, among other factors, will improve house-building programmes.

Mr. Allason: Has my hon. Friend found any evidence for the theory that the reduction by 41,000 of the number of houses built in the private sector last year was due to the influence of Tory councils?

Mr. Page: I would rather await the outcome of the discussions, when we can make a full statement on this matter, with the co-operation of the builders.

Derelict Areas

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he proposes to take to speed up the clearance of derelict areas.

Mr. Graham Page: My right hon. Friend will consider what steps will be most effective.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is a good start apparently to withdraw the White Paper which his predecessor put out on the whole subject of pollution? What is being done to re-emphasise the assurance that within 10 years the major part of dereliction will be cleared?

Mr. Page: I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the outcome of the Government's review of public expenditure as a whole. My right hon. Friend is eager that steps should continue to be taken to deal with derelict areas.

Mr. Crosland: Will the hon. Gentleman at least give the House an assurance that the very much enlarged programme of expenditure for the next three years which I announced in April will be maintained in the face of any pressures from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Page: No, Sir. I cannot give that undertaking at present.

Building Land

Mr. Murton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what are his plans for ensuring an adequate supply of building land ahead of immediate requirements.

Mr. Graham Page: My right hon. Friend appreciates that the availability of land is essential to the revival of the house-building programme and we are beginning discussions with local authorities about this.

Mr. Murton: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is that land has been brought forward in too small quantities and only from time to time, and that this has probably added quite considerably to the cost to the home


buyer? Will my hon. Friend consider a ten-year rolling programme for the release of land in the future?

Mr. Page: I agree with the first remarks of my hon. Friend. On the second part of his question, I think that a lot depends on regional planning, and we are pressing forward with that as best we can.

Mr. Freeson: The Minister said that the Government were beginning discussions with local authorities. Is he not aware that discussions on this matter have been going on for some time, particularly with county planning authorities? Does he appreciate that one of the difficulties, that of the resistance to releasing land, can be overcome by the use of the Land Commission in selected areas?

Mr. Page: No, Sir.

Mr. Sandys: While recognising the need for more land for building, may I ask my hon. Friend to remember the importance of preserving the Green Belt?

Mr. Page: Yes, Sir.

Flats to Rent

Mr. Murton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what are his plans for encouraging the private building of flats to rent.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Paul Channon): As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend is very anxious to reverse the present decline in this and other kinds of house building. He is studying the financial and other implications of this problem, and I would ask my hon. Friend to await the outcome of this study.

Mr. Murton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that Answer. Will he bear in mind that official encouragement is the obvious answer to this problem, and that if houses were built to rent they could make a big contribution to the continuing housing shortage?

Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Molloy: May I first congratulate both Ministers on putting in an appearance today? May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, as Conservative-

controlled councils seem to have put a brake on council house building, which seems a most callous thing to do, and seems to many people to have been done merely as a political gesture to hit the then Labour Government, he will reverse that trend, knowing that many people are still homeless because of that callous manoeuvre?

Mr. Channon: I do not accept the implications of that question, nor do I think it relevant to the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend bear in mind particularly in this connection the recommendation of the Milner Holland Committee that the allowance of depreciation for tax purposes in these cases would be a great encouragement to the provision of accommodation to rent?

Mr. Channon: That will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I shall bear my right hon. Friend's views in mind and keep in touch with the Chancellor in reviewing this issue.

Mr. Ronald Brown: May I ask the Minister whether a check will be made on Hackney Borough Council which has cut its programme from 2,000 to 600 homes a year? There is evidence that councils are cutting back their building programmes in areas of great housing shortage.

Mr. Channon: I would not without notice wish to comment on what takes place in Hackney. That is an entirely different matter, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question about it if he wishes to do so.

Council Houses (Sales)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he issued the circular to local authorities removing restrictions on the sale of council houses.

Mr. Peter Walker: To encourage the spread of home ownership and to increase the opportunities for tenants of council houses to own the houses in which they live.

Mrs. Short: But if the Minister has just awakened to the fact that thousands


of families, white and coloured, and their children are living in grossly overcrowded conditions in many of our towns and cities, apart from London, does he realise that by sending out this circular to local authorities he is reducing the pool of houses to let? What we need is more houses. Will he get on with this?

Mr. Walker: I believe that those people in bad housing conditions and on housing waiting lists will benefit more from what is being done as a result of this circular than by waiting for existing tenants to vacate their homes.

Mr. Crawshaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in Liverpool about 10 per cent. of the people are rehoused each year in corporation houses which become empty during that year, and that his policy, taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that all houses would be sold, which would remove the opportunity for that 10 per cent.? While there may be a case for this policy in those areas where there is no shortage, or no great shortage, surely this is a detrimental step for the Minister to take in respect of Liverpool?

Mr. Walker: I do not think that the large number of people living in council houses should be deprived of the opportunity of buying their own homes, which I wish to encourage them to do. It was made perfectly clear in my circular that resources released as a result of this policy should be used to help those people on the housing list.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hundreds of council tenants in my constituency welcome his decision?

Mr. Walker: Yes.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the most difficult social cases to rehouse are the very people in need of old council houses with cheaper rents? How, therefore, will this policy help? Can the Minister give any estimate of the cost of replacing the older houses that he is selling by new houses in our big cities?

Mr. Walker: Houses will be sold within a fixed margin of the market price and not the original cost price. In my view this will release resources which will help those people still on the housing list.

Lambeth (Minister's Visit)

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement about his official visit to the London Borough of Lambeth.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he will now take, following his recent official visit to Brixton, to alleviate the housing problems of the London Borough of Lambeth.

Mr. Peter Walker: I was pleased to find the Lambeth Council engaged in an expanded programme of new house building, a large slum clearance programme and a campaign for house improvements.
In particular I intend to draw the attention of other local authorities to the success of Lambeth's comprehensive housing advisory centre.

Mr. Fraser: Having visited some overcrowded houses in my constituency, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the council will now receive loan sanction from the Government to buy empty houses in the same road to alleviate overcrowded housing conditions? Secondly, can he say whether there will be increased housing finance from the Government for Lambeth, which the borough has requested? Has he discussed with the council its proposal in respect of concessionary fares to old-age pensioners if it receives an increased rate support grant?

Mr. Walker: I should require notice of the last question. The question of financing areas like Lambeth, with a serious financial problem, is something to be considered in the general review of housing finance.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware that his whiz-kid descent upon Lambeth, accompanied by loud protestations of horrified disgust, is not worth a light unless he follows it up with some concrete action? How much more money will he give Lambeth? Is he willing to give a guarantee that Lambeth will get more money under the review that he says is going on at present?

Mr. Walker: As the object of the review is to assist areas where housing is worst the review will be of benefit


to areas such as Lambeth. As for my visit there, I particularly complained at the manner in which certain tenants were being exploited and were unaware of their rights. As a result, I have increased the expenditure to be incurred in bringing to the attention of these immigrants their proper rights and powers.

Mr. Freeson: Does the Minister accept that one of the main underlying problems of Lambeth and similar areas is the shortage of land on which to rehouse people in order to pursue improvements and clearance? Is the Minister aware of the difficulties that the Borough of Lambeth is experiencing—difficulties that are repeated elsewhere in London and in other areas—in getting land for local authority purposes in outer London areas such as Sutton, which prevents rehousing? What action is he proposing to take to get the Sutton Council and others like it to release land in outer London so as to help the Inner London twilight areas?

Mr. Walker: We are sending out the recent report on housing in London, and in the circular attached we are urging local authorities to take notice of this problem, and we are entering discussions with them.

Mortgage Interest Rates

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make proposals to reduce mortgage interest rates.

Mr. Channon: It is not possible to isolate mortgage interest rates from the general level of interest rates. I am satisfied that the building societies recognise the need to reduce their lending rates as soon as this can be done without reducing the flow of deposits.

Mr. Fraser: But since the hon. Gentlemen, when in opposition, slated the former Government over the housing interest rates, will the Government act as quickly on the G.L.C. mortgage rates—which have gone up—as they did on giving sanction to sell council houses? Can we have a little instant government to make house purchase easier?

Mr. Channon: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that local authorities must make sure that they are not

running lending schemes at a loss, and that they also have to borrow for their lending.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that whereas Bank Rate has been reduced twice, from 8 per cent. to 7 per cent., there has been no commensurate reduction in mortgage interest rates for some time? Although it does not automatically follow that there should be a reduction, there is no doubt that building societies today have ample funds to lend but are frustrated from doing so due to the high interest rates, which are deterring borrowers?

Mr. Channon: That is true, but my hon. Friend would agree that Bank Rate is relevant only in so far as it reflects and affects rates of interest in general.

Mr. Crosland: Is the Minister completely unaware that in the recent General Election every Tory candidate was attacking the Labour Government for not reducing mortgage rates and was promising that a Tory Government would do so?

Mr. Channon: Perhaps I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. George Brown made some very foolish comments in an earlier General Election.

Liverpool (Minister's Visit)

Mr. Ogden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make an official visit to Liverpool.

Mr. Peter Walker: I hope to visit many housing authorities with serious housing problems in due course. Prior to becoming the Minister I made several visits to Liverpool and visited a number of the areas with housing problems. I hope to make further visits in the future.

Mr. Ogden: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for visiting Liverpool, because it helped tremendously to increase my majority, but can he give an assurance that he will continue the policy of his predecessor and that Liverpool will remain an area of special need? Will he continue the policy of his predecessor, so that when Liverpool asks for permission to build houses it will be given that permission and a chance to show what it can do?

Mr. Walker: I have no intention of stopping Liverpool from proceeding as


fast as possible with its housing programme.

Mr. Crawshaw: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall visiting Liverpool and discussing its housing problems with the Tory Council? Does he subscribe to the view that in the next two or three years there will be a surplus of 10,000 houses in Liverpool? Will that be because the Tories will have raised the rents to such an extent that people will take their names off the housing register?

Mr. Walker: I mainly visited the Snap project and I particularly discussed the two improvement areas which the Liverpool Council has set up, both of which are progressing, but obviously with a city with such a housing problem as Liverpool I shall keep in close contact with the local authority.

Building Societies Association (Discussions)

Mr. Ogden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what discussions he has had with the Building Societies Association in relation to Her Majesty's Government's housing policies.

Mr. Peter Walker: I met representatives of the building societies for the first time on 29th June at a meeting of my Housing Programme Working Party, and I intend to have continuing discussions with them.

Mr. Ogden: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the supplementary question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)? Is he aware that the hon. Gentleman's view is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and that it would help if he could make a statement on the matter as soon as possible?

Mr. Walker: I certainly hope that the volume of funds coming into building societies will be sufficient to support an expanding building programme.

Mr. Crosland: Once again the right hon. Gentleman talks about hoping. There was a clear General Election pledge by the Tory Party. What will the right hon. Gentleman do to carry it out?

Mr. Walker: To which General Election pledge is the right hon. Gentleman referring?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. On almost every Question someone has risen from the Opposition Front Bench. Are they going to continue to take advantage—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I dealt with that point last Thursday.

Council Houses (Repairs)

Mr. Bob Brown: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if it is his policy to advise local authorities to charge their tenants for repairs.

Mr. Channon: Authorities have certain statutory repairing obligations. Beyond this policy is a matter for local decision.

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that the Newcastle City Council is charging tenants for all repairs? Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that this is a grossly undesirable practice, which is likely to cause good houses to fall into disrepair, thereby frustrating his own policy of selling council houses?

Mr. Channon: That is a matter of policy for the Newcastle Council. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific point to raise perhaps he will write to me, when I shall be willing to look into it.

Rents and Housing Subsidies

Mr. Bob Brown: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government by how much he estimates rents of Newcastle Corporation and Newburn Urban District Council houses will increase on average on the basis that housing subsidies are abolished.

Mr. Channon: I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) on 7th July.—[Vol. 803, c. 19.]

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. I am sure that my constituents will be grateful to have it straight from the horse's mouth. Can he advise the House when he intends to legislate to abolish housing subsidies, which is so genteelly referred to in the Gracious Speech as "restructuring"?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman must remember what was said in the Queen's Speech. That remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and before


any change is made in the system by recasting housing subsidies, there will have to be lengthy consultations with local authorities and others concerned.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on his plans to renegotiate the housing subsidy system.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what plans he has regarding the level of the grant to local authorities for council house building.

Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend is now considering how the present housing subsidies might be recast so as better to serve the Government's housing objectives of giving greater priority to the homeless and the badly housed.

Mr. Barnes: But could the hon. Gentleman not clarify this business of "recasting" or "refashioning" or "restructuring", or whatever it is, the housing subsidies? Does it not mean that he intends to cut drastically the overall level of housing subsidies, which will mean that the rents of many council tenants will be forced up even faster than they are rising at the moment?

Mr. Channon: I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the passage in the Gracious Speech, which said that housing subsidies will be refashioned so as to give more help to those in greatest need. I should have thought that that was very acceptable.

Mr. Tuck: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it will give help to those in the greatest need if he slashes the housing subsidies of £130 million which the Labour Government gave, which will force up council rents and make it much more difficult for local authorities to build houses?

Mr. Channon: As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes), the purpose of recasting or refashioning the housing subsidies is to give more help to those in greatest need.

Mr. Freeson: In pursuit of that objective, which has been mentioned a great deal by hon. Members opposite, will the hon. Gentleman and the Minister con-

sider pursuing the consideration which the previous Administration gave, as part of their reconsideration of housing finance, to a national rebate scheme to apply to people in private accommodation as well as public?

Mr. Channon: It is far too early at this stage to reach any conclusions on this matter, but certainly all points of view will be borne in mind.

Mr. Tuck: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

Tower Blocks (Strengthening)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will increase the percentage of Government grant to local authorities for the cost of strengthening tower blocks of the Ronan Point variety.

Mr. Channon: I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave on 7th July to a question by the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram).—[Vol. 803, c. 20.]

Mr. Prentice: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the Report stage of the Housing Bill on 18th June last year, when Conservative hon. Members, including the present Minister of Housing, voted for an Amendment to increase the grant for this work? Will the Government now explain to the local authorities concerned why this pledge has been broken, along with a number of others?

Mr. Channon: This is a decision made by the previous Administration. My hon. Friends, when in Opposition, strongly supported any attempt to raise the level of the grant from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. But I am satisfied that it is impossible for us to disturb this settlement.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: As one who persistently and consistently criticised the previous Government for their parsimonious attitude on this all-important question, and as one who moved the Amendment to which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) referred, may I ask whether we can be assured that as the


present Government said that they would be a better Government, they will do something better on this issue than the previous Government did?

Mr. Channon: I have looked at this matter very carefully, in view of the hon. Member's long and persistent interest on behalf of his constituents, and I am very sorry that I have to adhere to the previous decision of 50 per cent. It is a matter of regret to me and, I know, to the hon. Member. But I assure him that I have looked at this matter very carefully.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will give a list of the councils who have notified his Department that they will claim the 50 per cent. costs towards strengthening high-rise blocks of flats resultant upon the Ronan Point disaster; and whether he will consider the system of compensation so as to enable those councils with the higher costs to receive higher compensation so that all councils are committed to an equal outlay from their local rates.

Mr. Channon: As regards the first part of the Question, so far 16 local authorities have submitted claims for grant and I will, with permission, publish their names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
As for the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on 7th July to the Question by the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram)—[Vol. 803, c. 20.]

Mr. Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the previous Minister of Housing and Local Government was very weak in standing up to the Treasury on this question? Is he aware that the London boroughs and authorities throughout the country affected in this way are strongly against the policy pursued by the former Labour Government and the present Conservative Government on this issue? Will the hon. Gentleman urge his right hon. Friend to stand up to the Treasury to ensure that these people are fairly and properly treated because it will be the poor who will once again suffer unless something is done about this problem?

Mr. Channon: I have explained that this was a decision of the Labour

Government I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman on this matter.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfatcory nature of the Minister's Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Following are the names:
Blackburn C.B., Brent L.B., Chertsey U.D., Coventry C.B., Crosby B, Croydon L.B., Hounslow LB., Lowestoft B., Nottingham C.B., Rochdale C.B., Rochester B., Slough B., Sunderland C.B., Sutton Coldfield B., Wandsworth L.B., Brentwood U.D.

Mortgage Option Scheme

Mr. Barnett: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what changes he is proposing to make in the mortgage option scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend is exploring ways of improving the option mortgage scheme.

Mr. Barnett: Yes, but will the Minister of Housing insist that the building societies do not obstruct a more flexible scheme, which would allow people to opt in or out of the scheme, as was clearly implied by everything that the right hon. Gentleman has ever said?

Mr. Channon: As I said in my original reply, we are exploring ways of making the scheme flexible. I am sure that there is good will on both sides, among the building societies and ourselves, in attempts to make this scheme more flexible. It is being re-examined.

Mr. Emery: In considering the flexibility, will my hon. Friend make sure that he bears in mind the more elderly, those over 55, who still may want to use the mortgage option scheme and who have as much right to use it as have some younger people?

Mr. Channon: I will bear my hon. Friend's views very much in mind in our discussions with the building societies.

Bideford and Northam (Sewerage Scheme)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proposals have been submitted to him for a new sewerage scheme for Bideford and Northam.

Mr. Graham Page: None, Sir, but I understand that applications for planning permission for alternative sites for a treatment works will be considered by the county council in September.

Mr. Mills: But would my hon. Friend remember that an early decision is required on this scheme, bearing in mind that we are in a development area? Will he also give a firm assurance that no financial restrictions will be imposed once a decision is made? Will he give every assistance to these two local authorities to come to an early decision?

Mr. Page: Certainly. It depends, of course, on when the two councils can agree upon a scheme and prepare it, but the financial side must obviously depend upon the scheme itself.

Land Commission Proposals (Maidstone)

Mr. John Wells: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will advise the Land Commission to terminate its activities in the Walderslade area of the Maidstone constituency immediately.

Mr. Graham Page: The Land Commission's planning application and draft compulsory purchase order are formally before my right hon. Friend for decision. He will make an announcement as soon as possible.

Mr. Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents are living in a state of uncertainty owing to the rascally activities of the Land Commission set up by the previous Labour Government? Will he take steps to terminate its activities in the Maidstone constituency, and elsewhere, as quickly as possible?

Mr. Page: I am very conscious of the need to make an early statement on this matter to remove uncertainties, but it is a matter which, through no fault of the present Government, is very complex, and a hurried statement might result in further uncertainties.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Denis Howell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement about the

Government's policy in respect of the future of local government.

Mr. Peter Walker: We shall implement local government reform on the principles laid down in my speech in the House on 18th February in the debate on the previous Government's White Paper Cmnd. 4276, and in accordance with the undertaking given in our Election manifesto.

Mr. Howell: The right hon. Gentleman has given us more detail in an interesting article today in the Birmingham Post—more than he has given Parliament, either in that debate or since. What time scale does he intend in order to bring about these major reforms, which he writes about today, and what proposals has he to deal with local government boundaries which he also writes about today?

Mr. Walker: There is nothing in that article in the Birmingham Post which is any different from that which was laid down in my speech in February.

Sir T. Brinton: But will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the previous Government's approval in principle of the Maud Report is cancelled? Will he go at least that far?

Mr. Walker: What I want to avoid is the view that Maud is scrapped or destroyed or that no notice is taken of it. Both the previous Government and the present Government considered that the Report was very important and that any reform of local government must consider it, and belief in the need to create larger authorities is shared by both sides of the House.

Leasehold Reform Act 1967

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will give an assurance that he will seek to make no amendment to the principles of the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967 which will have the effect of increasing the price of the freehold.

Mr. Woodhouse: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will seek to amend the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967 to remove the limitation by reference to rateable value on the right of enfranchisement.

Mr. Channon: The Government are currently reviewing all housing legislation but we have no plans at present for amending the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967.

Mr. Moyle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that reply will be received with a certain amount of alarm? Is he aware that the key to the Leasehold Reform Act is the price at which the freehold is sold, and that ideas that this is under review by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will not be popular among many hundreds of thousands of leaseholders?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman must not misunderstand my Answer. I said that we have no plans at present for amending the Act.

London Parks

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has made a decision in the future of London parks administration.

Mr. Peter Walker: No, Sir. Before reaching a decision on the scheme submitted by the Greater London Council under Section 58(2) of the London Government Act, 1963, I shall need to consider any representations which interested bodies and members of the public may wish to make to me. For this purpose copies of the scheme are being made available for inspection by the public.

Mr. Moyle: I am very grateful for that reply. Will the Minister undertake to receive a deputation from the trade unions on matters of promotion policy, negotiating machinery and the training scheme which the Greater London Council has maintained heretofore?

Mr. Walker: That is a different question, which perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to put down on the Order Paper.

Housing Advisory Centres

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to encourage housing advisory centres.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have already personally visited a number of housing advisory centres and we are collating

information for the purpose of encouraging the creation of housing advisory services in many parts of the country.

Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that future centres not only give advice but give proper propaganda in favour of the possibility of starting people on the way towards home ownership, thus reducing the demand on council housing?

Mr. Walker: One of the impressive things about the housing advisory centres run by, for example, Shelter and the Catholic Housing Association, and the one at Lambeth is the way in which they advise people on how to start home ownership.

New Towns (Sale of Houses)

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to encourage the sale of new town houses to tenants.

Mr. Peter Walker: I shall certainly be doing everything I can to encourage these sales, and positive steps for increasing them will be discussed with corporations and the Commission over the next few weeks, when I hope to be able to make a statement.

Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is no substantial difference between the treatment, from the point of view of the terms of sale, of council houses and new town houses; and if there is a discount of up to 20 per cent. on the sale of new town houses, may I assure my right hon. Friend that he will be surprised at the demand that will arise?

Mr. Walker: I am anxious to encourage home ownership in new towns and elsewhere.

Mr. Rankin: Nevertheless, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that a house will never be sold over the head of a sitting tenant who does not want to buy?

Mr. Walker: As far as public authority housing is concerned, certainly.

Mr. Tebbit: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unless he extends to new town houses the terms contained in his recent circular about council house sales,


there could be great discrimination shown against new town tenants, who might have to pay up to 25 per cent. more for a similar house in a similar street in a similar town?

Mr. Walker: I assure my hon. Friend that I am aware of these points. Many complicated details are involved. These are being discussed and I have promised to make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Orme: Why is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the sale of council houses but against local authorities building houses for sale?

Mr. Walker: The reason is simple: the building industry is quite able to cope with this problem.

House Building (Starts and Completions)

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what forecast he has made of the anticipated number of starts and completions of houses in 1970.

Mr. Channon: Starts in the first five months of 1970 were over 18,000 fewer than in the first five months of 1969, and completions were over 6,000 fewer. The figures for the year as a whole may be worse than those for 1969.

Mr. Costain: Is my hon. Friend aware that that confirms my worst fears and that when the Labour Party were in power I pointed this out but that hon. Gentlemen opposite merely laughed? Is he aware that the building industry now has the highest unemployment in recent memory? What does he hope to do to get things going again satisfactorily in the industry?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about this being an extremely worrying situation. We are doing all we can to reverse this trend. We are also concerned with the inflation in house prices that we have inherited.

Mr. Freeson: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that one contribution to resolving this problem might be to allow the 20 or more local authorities which wish to build houses for sale to go ahead and do so?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that would not be a solution to the problem which has been outlined.

House-Building Programme (Havering)

Mr. Leonard: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what undertakings have been given so far this year to his Department by the London Borough of Havering concerning the number of houses which the Borough proposes to build this year and next.

Mr. Channon: The council is to give further consideration to the size of its future house-building programme as soon as the results of a detailed survey by its own officers of the needs of the borough are available.

Mr. Leonard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that until the Conservative Party won control of Havering, the borough council was building 800 houses a year, but that its first proposal this year is to build only 12 houses? Is he aware that continual prodding from his Department is necessary if the 4,000 people on the waiting list of this borough are to stand any chance of being rehoused?

Mr. Channon: I do not accept the figure of 12 houses which the hon. Gentleman gives as the council's target. However, I hope to see the study when the council has prepared it, and then I will discuss it with the authority.

Government-Subsidised Dwellings (Sales)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will extend his policy of selling off subsidised council houses to sitting tenants to those persons who are in subsidised Government houses and flats.

Mr. Peter Walker: Government accommodation is provided for people carrying out a particular job and, therefore, normally cannot be sold to a sitting tenant. This does not preclude in appropriate circumstances the sale of a redundant dwelling to a sitting tenant.

Mr. Lewis: If such dwellings are good enough to sell to poorer tenants in poorer


areas, why not allow them to be sold to richer tenants in and around Whitehall?

Mr. Walker: We believe that they will have sufficiently long leases on these premises not to be interested in the freeholds.

ENVIRONMENT (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint to the Cabinet a Minister responsible for the environment.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have nothing to add to what I said in the debate on the Address on 2nd July.—[Vol. 803, c. 93.]

Mr. Dalyell: Who will be responsible for representing the interests of expenditure on the environment in the public expenditure sub-committee of the right hon. Gentleman's Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: I explained to the House in the debate on the Address that the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is in the Cabinet, is carrying the main responsibility for environmental problems. However, I am reviewing the whole structure of this matter to ensure that we get it right.

Mr. Crosland: Is the Prime Minister aware that the measures which the Labour Government took to protect the environment received widespread acclaim from hon. Members on both sides of the House? Is he further aware that his continued refusal to give an answer to this Question suggests that the present Government are seriously downgrading this entire crucial issue?

The Prime Minister: There is absolutely no justification whatever for that allegation. I am taking what I consider to be proper time to examine the whole structure of these Departments in dealing with the environment.

SOUTH AFRICA AND PORTUGAL

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to South Africa in the near future.

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to pay an official visit to Portugal.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman decide to visit his friends more often? Has he asked Mr. Vorster to act as the go-between in negotiations with Mr. Ian Smith?

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to visit these countries at present, though we are in diplomatic relations with them. There is no truth in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question

Mr. Archer: While sympathising with the Prime Minister's distaste for such a meeting, may I ask him to find a method to convey to the South African and Portuguese Governments the fact that Her Majesty's Government will not condone the infringement of human rights and that we shall respect United Nations and Council of Europe resolutions on the subject—if that is, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman's intention?

The Prime Minister: That is the view of Her Majesty's Government, as is well known to both countries.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in his talks with the American Government, they indicated that they would support the shipments of arms to South Africa? Would he also say whether reports that he has communicated with Heads of Government in the Commonwealth with a view to the resumed supply of arms to South Africa are true or false?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already told the House that we are in consultation with Commonwealth Governments on these matters. A full statement has been promised to the House for next week. As far as consultations are concerned, one must put a particular view to a Government before one can consult about a matter, and that is the basis on which we are working. I understand that the Opposition may wish to debate the subject. We appreciate that.

Mr. Harold Wilson: And the American view?

The Prime Minister: As for the American view, this is a matter for the American Government to state publicly.

Mr. Wilson: What view has been put to the Commonwealth? Would the right hon. Gentleman answer with a "Yes" or "No"? [HON. MEMBERS: "Did you?"] I said "Yes" or "No" on all matters of this importance. Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has put a proposition to them involving the supply of arms to South Africa, in breach of the Security Council resolution?

The Prime Minister: When Her Majesty's Government have reached a decision they will inform the House, after they have carried on consultations with the Commonwealth countries. It would be improper for us, while carrying on those consulations, to announce a proposition which has been made to Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Sandys: Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to restore our old friendship with Portugal, with whom our relations in the last few years have become so strained?

The Prime Minister: Portugal is our ally in N.A.T.O. and continued to be so when the Opposition were in power. We have diplomatic relations with both South Africa and Portugal so, naturally, we like to have normal relations with them.

Mr. John Mendelson: With reference to any discussions with Commonwealth Governments, can the Prime Minister deny what was reported yesterday in reputable newspapers that the Government have announced the decision that they will resume arms sales to South Africa and then start discussions with Commonwealth countries, or are the Government having real discussions before the final decision is taken?

The Prime Minister: We are having proper discussions with the Commonwealth countries, and it is right that while we are doing so we should not state publicly the contents of communications. We shall do so when the Government have reached their conclusions. We have promised a statement to the House next week, which we shall then make.

Sir F. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend take it that all of us on this side accept that when he does announce Her Majesty's Government's decision it will be one in the British national interest,

which will be a departure from what we have become used to in the past?

The Prime Minister: I stated that in my statement on the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Michael Foot: To refer to the original Question, why is the Prime Minister so reticent about visiting Cape Town to settle this disreputable deal when a previous Conservative Prime Minister, assisted by the right hon. Gentleman the present Foreign Secretary, was quite prepared to go to Munich?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is embarrassing his right hon. Friends far more than he is embarrassing me. There is nothing disreputable about discussing with Commonwealth Governments the carrying out of obligations, which were binding on the Administration of the Labour Party when in power, but which they failed to carry out.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Did not the Government presided over by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) base their southern hemisphere strategy far more than have any Conservative Government on the South African Navy? Is it not, therefore, utter hypocrisy for them to condemn the sale of arms for naval purposes to South Africa?

The Prime Minister: Right hon. Gentlemen opposite must answer for their own hypocrisy: they had five and a half years to do so.

Mr. Healey: As the overwhelming majority of our allies in N.A.T.O., who have as much concern as we have in the security of the Cape route, and as the overwhelming majority of our partners in the Commonwealth and our potential partners in the Common Market, have declared themselves opposed to the policy which the Government proposed during the General Election, and as the South African Government have attempted to blackmail Britain by exploiting the Government's weakness to seek revision of the Simonstown Treaty totally in their own interest, will not the Prime Minister now align Her Majesty's Government with the overwhelming majority of those on whom we depend for our defence and prosperity?

The Prime Minister: We shall take our decisions on their own merits, but I well


recall, when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Defence and Mr. George Brown was Foreign Secretary, how they were both dished by the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the Opposition sending his Chief Whip round to get hon. Members to sign a Motion against him on something which he himself wanted.

Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the un-satisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg leave to give notice that my right hon. Friends and I will take an early opportunity of raising the matter—and not on the Adjournment.

The Prime Minister: If I may say so, as the right hon. Gentleman has already told us that, it makes no difference.

RHODESIA

Mr. Wall: asked the Prime Minister what communications he has received from Mr. Ian Smith; and what action he proposes to take about the settlement of the dispute with Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir. I have nothing to add to what I said in the debate on the Address on 2nd July.—[Vol. 803, c. 81.]

Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the promised talks are likely to take place before the end of this year?

The Prime Minister: I cannot give any indication when such talks are likely to start.

Mr. Judd: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that any settlement of this dispute can only be one which is acceptable to all the people of Rhodesia, whatever their racial origins?

The Prime Minister: We have said that the settlement must be in the context of the five principles, and that covers that particular point.

Mr. Evelyn King: Has the Prime Minister seen the conclusion of the United Nations Committee appointed to consider sanctions, to the effect that sanctions have not been fully effective, and have not led to the desired results, and would he and the Government in their consideration have regard to that neutral view?

The Prime Minister: It is true that sanctions have not brought about the desired objectives, in so far as they have failed to bring Rhodesia back into the constitutional fold, but it is undeniable that they have had an impact on Rhodesia. The proposal is that those sanctions should remain pending negotiations.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The Prime Minister constantly talks of the five principles, but were there not six principles? Which has he thrown overboard?

The Prime Minister: Five principles were agreed between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, when Prime Minister, and Mr. Smith. The sixth principle was created by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition at a later date.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the five principles were not agreed with Mr. Smith before 1964? All the exchanges are on the record in the Blue Book issued by the late Government. The sixth principle, which I did invent, was very much welcomed at the time in the House by both sides because what it said was that we should protect the rights of the majority before majority rule and, more important still, the rights of the minority after majority rule. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, therefore, that he was wrong in his answer?

The Prime Minister: The latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is already covered by the five principles. In fact, if the five principles were put into practice there would be no need for the sixth—

Mr. Wilson: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: Yes, because it would be covered by the constitutional arrangements. As to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, this was arranged in talks between Mr. Smith and my right hon. Friend.

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the workings of the Official Secrets Act; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: The Government are looking into this, but I have no statement to make at present.

Mr. Davidson: Is the Prime Minister aware that his reply is about as satisfactory as the Answers I used to get, when I asked the same Question, from my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the Opposition? Will the right hon. Gentleman, however, undertake to have a searching look at the weaknesses of the Official Secrets Act, in order to make sure that its provisions operate only in those fields where national security is affected, and not in fields where it is a matter of sensitivity of Ministers and nothing else?

The Prime Minister: The points which the hon. Gentleman made are certainly those which must be taken into account in this review. The hon. Gentleman has a great knowledge of the problems involved here, and I think that he has some knowledge also of the difficulty of redrafting the requirements to meet the specification which he himself has just laid down.

REGIONAL PLANNING (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Denis Howell: asked the Prime Minister which Minister has responsibility for regional economic planning councils and boards.

The Prime Minister: As regards the English regions, my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Housing and Local Government; as regards Scotland and Wales, the respective Secretaries of State.

Mr. Howell: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he fully accepts the concept of regional strategy in order to harmonise the conflicting interests of industry, local government planning, and so on; and that future Government policy will be fully based on that strategy?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that was a broad statement of the desirable aims of regional development which could not be denied.

WELSH AFFAIRS

Mr. Elystan Morgan: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has to

give the Welsh people a greater say in their own affairs on the same basis as his plans for Scotland.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing at present to add to what was said in the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Morgan: Does not the Prime Minister agree that if the case for Scottish devolution rests on nationhood, an equally strong and reputable case must be made out for Wales? Will he give an undertaking that in this respect he will treat both these countries on a basis of absolute equality?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's statement, but as to the second part I should have thought that what was required was a structure best suited to each country and, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, the countries have differences of background.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that it is, perhaps, time that the English people had some share in deciding their own affairs?

The Prime Minister: I understand that Lord Crowther's Commission is bearing that point in mind.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Prime Minister say whether the constitutional proposals for Scotland referred to in the Gracious Speech will be implemented in the present Session of Parliament?

The Prime Minister: They must follow upon action on the reform of local government in Scotland. As stated in the Gracious Speech, we shall lay proposals before the House to that end.

Mr. Rankin: Will the Prime Minister make sure that Scotland always keeps up with Wales?

The Prime Minister: The request in this Question is for Wales to keep up with Scotland.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister recognise that he has no mandate in Scotland to do any such thing? Will he say what Wales has done to deserve the kind of treatment he is about to mete out to Scotland?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member is using as a background to his series


of questions that he wants a separatist Scotland, he had better put that to the Scots. He will not get much support.

NORTHERN IRELAND (QUESTIONS)

Mr. Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to seek your guidance and to draw the attention of the House to a difficulty I am encountering and which I believe will be of concern to many hon. Members and should be of concern to the House as a whole. As I understand it, if a British subject is in a foreign prison it is admissible to table Questions to the Foreign Secretary. If a British subject is in a prison in the United Kingdom it is admissible to submit questions to the Home Secretary. What I am finding is that in the case of a British subject imprisoned in a gaol in Northern Ireland it is not admissible to submit Questions to Ministers in this House because there is a denial of Ministerial responsibility.
May I draw your attention to the fact that I have made two attempts to take direct action, as it were, by attempting to contact the Governor of Armagh Gaol? Yesterday morning he was not there; yesterday afternoon he could not be found, and today he is off duty. It does seem that it is quite wrong that this House should be unable to inquire about the circumstances and well-being of one of its Members. I am seeking your guidance as to what remedy there is open to us to try to redress this anachronistic, anomalous, ludicrous and unsatisfactory situation.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for letting me know that he was to raise this matter. I cannot comment on the ubiquity or lack of ubiquity on the part of the Governor of Armagh Prison, but there is little comment I can make on the substance of the submission the hon. Member had made beyond expressing broad agreement with his interpretation of the facts.
Northern Ireland is neither an independent foreign country nor a colony, and many aspects of its administration have been removed by the will of Parliament from the direct control of the United Kingdom Government. This situation is inevitably reflected in the rules governing Questions. I believe,

however, I ought at this point to make clear to the House, to the hon. Member and to new hon. Members that it does not accord with our custom or convention that the refusal of Questions should be raised in the House as a point of order. If a Member believes his Question has been unreasonably rejected by the Table Office he can always require an appeal to be made to me. Such appeals are not inevitably doomed to failure. [Laughter.]
If, however, an appeal is unsuccessful I am always ready to discuss the matter with the hon. Member who, if still dissatisfied, then has two courses open to him. On the one hand, if he disagrees with the Chair's interpretation of the rules he has the conventional remedy of a Motion of censure upon Mr. Speaker. If, on the other hand, he believes the rule is bad and ought to be changed, he can put down a Motion requesting that such a change be made. The mere raising of a point of order, however, confers no power on the Chair and no alteration of the accepted procedures of the House can flow from it. I hope that that helps the hon. Member.

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. Of course, Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for what happens to a prisoner in a foreign gaol, but we can none the less put Questions to the Foreign Secretary asking him to make inquiries or to make representations on our behalf. Is not our link with Northern Ireland in those respects for which Her Majesty's Government are not directly responsible the Home Secretary? In the same way, can we not put Questions to the Home Secretary asking him to make inquiries and to make representations in matters in which he is not directly responsible on which, like the Foreign Secretary, he has grounds of access to that Government?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member has put a little more deeply the point put by his hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham). The uniqueness of Northern Ireland is the fact that we have handed over the administration of law in Northern Ireland and many other functions of government in Northern Ireland to Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I agree with your


observations with regard to the uniqueness of the Northern Ireland situation, but, with great respect, I should have thought that events arising from last August had satisfactorily shattered the convention that had existed in this House over the responsibility of this House and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on questions concerning Northern Ireland. In this particular case, is it not the fact that the British Government, through General Freeland, have responsibility for internal security in Northern Ireland? Therefore, the noble Lord in another place, the Minister of Defence, is responsible for security there and any question on the treatment of inmates of Armagh Prison is undoubtedly a question of tremendous security importance. Therefore, would it not be in order to put down Questions to the Minister of Defence, or his representative in this House, concerning prisoners in Armagh Gaol?

Mr. Speaker: I have ruled and I have been asked for my advice. My advice is that this can be pursued in one of two ways, either by a vote challenging the Ruling of Mr. Speaker and his interpretation of the rule about questioning, or a Parliamentary Motion seeking to change the rule which some hon. Members find at the moment very onerous.

Mr. Orme: Further to that point of order. You stated, Mr. Speaker, that certain powers have been handed over to the Northern Ireland Parliament, but surely you will recall that Section 75 of the 1920 Government of Ireland Act gives this Parliament sovereign power over the whole of the United Kingdom including Northern Ireland. Surely in those circumstances and at the same time when 12 hon. Members are being sent from Northern Ireland to sit in this Parliament there is a right of this Parliament to question any aspect of what happens in any part of the United Kingdom. I should think this a basic right which we are given safeguarded under the 1920 Act.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Every hon. Member knows the clause at the end of the 1920 Act, but this does not affect my Ruling.

Mr. English: Mr. Speaker, your Ruling is of immense importance if we are to have devolution in Scotland, Wales and, possibly, in England as well as the present devolution in Northern Ireland. May I offer you the analogy of the United States where, even in a federal State, it is not the case that Congress is precluded from investigating anything. Congress may investigate matters even when they are in the province of the State. So could this House through a Select Committee. It seems clear that what this House could do through a Select Committee it ought to be able to do in the form of a Question to a Minister.

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for Mr. Speaker McCormack and the Government in Washington, but the Ruling I have given is clear. One has Parliamentary ways of examining it, and there is indeed a Motion on the Order Paper examining the whole issue.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you reconsider the answer you gave to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), which seemed in some respects to go rather further than some of the Rulings which previous Speakers have made on this issue? Surely it is the case that the Home Secretary does have a departmental responsibility to make representations about the conditions of affairs in Northern Ireland to the Northern Irish Government. In that respect, therefore, he can be questioned either as to the representations he has made or to ask him to make further representations. In that respect, therefore, he should be asked a question along these lines about conditions in Armagh Prison.

Mr. Driberg: Despite the existence and responsibility of the subordinate Parliament and Government at Stormont, of which you have reminded us, Mr. Speaker, is it not the case that Her Majesty's Government have reassumed responsibility for law and order in Ulster? Does not that mean that the case of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) is part of a whole area of responsibility with which Her Majesty's Government here are now concerned?
Can I further ask you, Mr. Speaker, for guidance? There are a number of matters


—for instance, the day-to-day administration of the nationalised industries—on which Ministers are not responsible to the House at Question Time but which an hon. Member can raise in debate. Would it be in order to raise this matter in an Adjournment debate?

Mr. Speaker: It would be in order to raise this matter on the Motion which is on the Order Paper, which includes this and a whole series of kindred matters in what is a unique and historic occasion.

Mr. Paget: May I ask you once again, Mr. Speaker, if you will reconsider and give us your Ruling on this narrow point. In many cases we have devolved our whole responsibility, as with the Colonies which have become independent. If one of our citizens is imprisoned there we may then, through our Foreign Secretary, make representations, and we may put Questions to the Foreign Secretary asking him to do so.
In Northern Ireland the position is that we have not devolved all; we have devolved part. As to that which we have not devolved, we can put Questions to the Ministers who are responsible. As to that which we have devolved—this includes prison administration—we cannot put a Question to a Minister who has responsibility, because no Minister is responsible for prison administration. However, precisely because no Minister is responsible we can put a Question asking that representations or inquiries be made in exactly the same way as we do so in any prison outside Ulster anywhere in the world where we are not responsible. I ask you to reconsider this narrow point. Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is merely putting again what has already been put very clearly—the difference in the position of Northern Ireland from Colonies, on the one hand, and foreign countries, on the other. I must abide by my Ruling.

Mr. Ogden: Is it not rather sad, Mr. Speaker, that matters of this kind have to be raised as narrow points of order when everyone in the House, including, I hope, the Prime Minister, knows that the point we are getting at is that it would be a good thing if the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) who is at present in Armagh Gaol were released as an act of mercy and clemency? This would be a good thing for progress in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Fernyhough: Everyone in the House knows that when we pass the Estimates we vote a subsidy to the Northern Ireland Government. On which of the Estimates in the Consolidated Fund Bill, which we shall deal with next Monday, would it be in order to raise a discussion on that part of the subsidy which goes towards keeping closed or open gaols in Ulster?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must examine the Estimates himself. I cannot help him in that way.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Molloy: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier in dealing with questions about the supply of arms to South Africa, the Prime Minister said, perhaps inadvertently, that discussions were going on with the Commonwealth. It seemed to us that the right hon. Gentleman had included South Africa in "the Commonwealth".
Could the Prime Minister be provided with an opportunity to say quite clearly that, despite certain Press reports, the Government have entered into no negotiations at all with South Africa and place that matter beyond doubt?

Mr. Speaker: This would have been in order as a supplementary question. It is not a point of order for Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day — HARBOURS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.45 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. John Peyton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill has a single and strictly limited purpose—to enable the Government to continue to make financial assistance available for harbour development under Sections 11 and 12 of the Harbours Act, 1964. It is necessary to introduce it now, before the Summer Recess, so as to allow for existing commitments. These consist of loans and grants which would take us over the £100 million limit fixed under Section 13 of the 1964 Act.
If developments already planned and urgently needed are not to be held up, those commitments must be honoured. The most recent were undertaken by the previous Administration in anticipation of the Ports Bill, which would have abolished the limit under the 1964 Act.
I have said that the Bill has a limited purpose. The House will not now expect me to anticipate the outcome of a wider review of the needs of the ports industry. Meanwhile, there is no "policy vacuum" after the disappearance—welcome to us on this side—of the previous Administration's Ports Bill. The Harbours Act, 1964 is still in full operation. The National Ports Council under the vigorous leadership of Sir Arthur Kirby continues to give valuable service. In the vital field of labour relations there is general agreement about pursuing the objectives of the Devlin Report.
To explain the provisions of the Bill, I should first say a word about the provisions in the Harbours Act, 1964, to which it relates.
Section 11 of the 1964 Act, as later amended by Section 40 of the Docks and Harbours Act, 1966, gives the Minister power, after consultation with the National Ports Council and with the approval of the Treasury, to make loans to statutory harbour authorities for certain expenses of a capital nature incurred

by them. Section 12 of the 1964 Act gives the Minister power to make grants to statutory harbour authorities and also to other persons engaged in harbour operations.
These grants are at present payable at a standard rate of 20 per cent. on all eligible expenditure—basically harbour works which make a substantial and desirable contribution to international trade, and specialised mechanical equipment used in handling cargo. Both loans under Section 11 and grants under Section 12 are subject to the limit I have already mentioned, and it is with that limit that this Bill is concerned.
Section 13(1) of the 1964 Act provides that the aggregate amount of loans and grants taken together shall not exceed £50 million or, if so authorised by a Resolution of this House, £100 million. As the House knows, such a Resolution was passed in June, 1968, and the limit now stands at £100 million. Issues of loans and grants to 30th June, 1970, total about £81 million, about £54 million of this being in loans and the remaining £27 million in grants.
Taking into account the other loans approved but not issued, and the estimated grant payments which are becoming due, the limit of £100 million is likely to be reached within the next few months. I think it fair to make clear the position of the previous Government. They intended that under their Ports Bill the limit in Section 13 of the Harbours Act would disappear and that other arrangements would be made for parliamentary control of the totals of loans and grants. It was against that background that commitments continued to be made, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) explained during the discussion in Standing Committee on the Ports Bill. This is one of the reasons, as I have said, for needing further provision now.
The Bill itself is simple. Clause 1 repeals Section 13(1) of the 1964 Act and establishes a new limit of £75 million, or, if so provided by a Resolution of the House of Commons, £125 million, on loans by the Minister under Section 11 of the 1964 Act after the passing of the present Bill. Clause 2 is purely formal.
I call the attention of the House to one change in the scope of the provision,


in that the new limit does not apply to grants. Loans under Section 11 of the 1964 Act are issued by the Treasury out of the National Loans Fund, and it is right that there should be a statutory limit to the amount which may be made available. Grants under Section 12 of the Act, however, are provided on a Ministry of Transport Vote. The inclusion of grants in the limit in Section 13 is, therefore, I suggest, unnecessary, since Parliament controls the amount of grant through the annual Estimates. I propose, therefore, that the Bill should provide only for a limit on loans under Section 11 of the 1964 Act.
Before explaining the amounts contained in the Bill, I should remind the House that loans under Section 11 of the 1964 Act are available only for that part of the port industry which is not nationalised. Loans to the British Transport Docks Board—and to the British Railways Board and the British Waterways Board which both manage ports—are made under the Transport Act, 1962. Moreover, Section 11 loans may be made only to statutory harbour authorities and in respect of specific types of capital expenditure on works, equipment or land. They cannot be used for the general capital expenditure of an authority. The limit which we are today discussing is, therefore, in no sense an indication of the prospective total capital expenditure in the ports as a whole.
The new limit will apply to all loans which are made after the passing of this Bill. The first charge is, therefore, the amounts which still have to be issued in respect of loans already approved by my predecessor.
Loans for schemes not yet formally approved or otherwise committed have to be considered rather differently. I shall come to them in a moment. I must, however, digress to explain to the House that these proposals in no way prejudge the possibility of changes in the arrangements for Government financial assistance to harbour development. The Government will be reviewing the general question of assistance to industry, whether by way of grant or loan, and in that context we shall be looking at the special problems of the ports. It is possible that new arrangements will be arrived at which will supersede for the ports what we are proposing today.
It would, however, be plainly wrong to impose an arbitrary slowing down of major port investment by withdrawing loans and grants without warning. I am, therefore, taking this early opportunity to seek the necessary parliamentary powers so that help can continue to be provided without interruption.
Apart from the £19 million of outstanding commitments which I have mentioned, there are about £12 million of outstanding loan applications. There are also other schemes, some of them large, for which harbour authorities may well wish to seek loan assistance. To allow for all these known and possible schemes, I consider that the basic limit on loans should be £75 million, and that is what is proposed in Clause 1. That £75 million does not cover requirements for loans which might arise over, say, the next two years for harbour developments which cannot now be foreseen. It seems to me, therefore, that, just as the 1964 Act provided for a two-tier limit, it would be prudent to provide some flexibility in the arrangements and so avoid the need for a further Bill. The present Bill provides, therefore, that the limit of £75 million may be increased by affirmative Resolution of this House by a further £50 million.
I think that the House would wish to have some examples of the works which would be provided for by the Bill. Existing commitments include the balance of loans towards the first stage of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board's important new dock at Seaforth, interest loans related to previous loans for the new entrance lock at Leith, and important dredging works at Milford Haven.
Loans have been approved towards other new developments at Liverpool—a car ferry and container terminal for the British and Irish Steam Packet Company Limited—and on the Tees mainly for the new iron ore terminal at Redcar.
Major new schemes awaiting approval for loan and grant purposes include two important projects in Scotland. First, there is the new entrance lock at Grangemouth. My predecessor formally authorised construction work for the purposes of Section 9 of the Act, but it was not possible for him to enter into a formal commitment to make a loan and pay grant as, once a Dissolution had been


announced, there was no longer a Bill before Parliament to justify such a commitment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman considers that I have put his position fairly. He did, however, accept in principle the case for loan and grant, and this work is urgently needed to replace the existing lock, which is in poor condition, and to make it possible for larger ships to use the port.
The second of these schemes is the construction of an extension of the Greenock container terminal on the Clyde. This work has not yet been authorised under Section 9 of the Act, but after considering the Clyde Port authority's application and the recommendation of the National Ports Council I am satisfied that it should be so authorised, and I am informing the Authority accordingly.
Both these proposals seem to me sound and desirable investments which should not be held up. I have no intention of doing so or delaying Government assistance for such valuable developments while wider problems are being considered. Without the powers the Bill contains, I cannot proceed with the port authorities of the Forth and Clyde on the subject of loans and grants.

Mr. James Johnson: Can the Minister give us an indication of what he is doing for the fishing ports? I understand that the working conditions in docks like St. Andrew's, Hull, Lowestoft and elsewhere for filleters and those processing fish need careful attention. Has the right hon. Gentleman any schemes for the renovation of such ports?

Mr. Peyton: I would not dream of having such schemes without careful attention, but it would be premature for me this afternoon to seek to go into details on any port other than those I have mentioned. Projects will come forward. They will be considered by the National Ports Council, whose advice I am obliged to consider. The hon. Gentleman may be certain that the interests of the ports to which he has referred will be very carefully considered.
For the moment, may I express the hope that for the reasons I have given the House will give a Second Reading to the

Bill, which will enable finance to be provided for essential developments in this vital industry.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: I should first like to congratulate the Minister on his appointment and to wish him success in his Ministry. All of us realise the vital importance of transport in its full ramifications to the efficiency and prosperity of our industry and the convenience and enjoyment of all our citizens. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will work on the basis of building on the policies he inherited, rather than spending his time dismantling them. There were some signs in his speech that he would work on that basis. We shall see as time goes on.
I also hope that he will find the work at the Ministry of Transport both exciting and challenging because, perhaps as much as or more than any other Ministry, it impinges on the daily life of practically every citizen. For that reason he will often be thought to be wrong. In my experience, it will be very rarely that he receives any tributes for the wisdom of his policies.
I should also like to put on record my appreciation of the tremendous services I had at all levels in the Ministry. The Minister may already appreciate that he has a body of able dedicated advisers. I should like it to be clearly understood how I benefited from my time at the Ministry.
I also congratulate and welcome the Parliamentary Secretary. He has already made his first appearance at the Box in his present capacity in a previous debate. He has the advantage of having had a lengthy apprenticeship in the subject during the passage of the Transport Act, 1968, with which I was at no point concerned, and more recently in our consideration of the Ports Bill, in which I was involved. I only hope that the hon. Gentleman will have benefited from his education, although I am bound to say that I noticed that he was sometimes a little more anxious to instruct than to learn. It will be extremely interesting to see how his thoughts and ideas on transport develops with his present responsibilities.
It is perhaps appropriate that the new Minister should have made his initial


appearance on the subject of ports, in view of the enormous amount of Parliamentary time I spent on the subject in the previous Parliament. Since it will be his fortune to be thought to be wrong more often than right, perhaps I should tell him at the outset that after, in the current fashion, taking a long hard look at the Bill and after calm cool and collective consideration of it, we have no opposition to its principle. Indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman very fairly said, the need for increasing the maximum existed some months ago. It was to have been taken care of, if the previous Administration had remained in office, by the Ports Bill that was before the last Parliament. In view of the demise of that legislation, it is clearly necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to take a step of this kind.
I join in the tribute he paid to the work of the National Ports Council and, in particular, to the work and leadership of its Chairman, Sir Arthur Kirby. I am glad that the Minister will continue to have the Council's advice, but we shall want a little more information about the policy framework in which the future loans are to be made. We quite understand that in the future there may be other arrangements, but the House is being asked to approve additional borrowing powers and we should like a little more information about the kind of structure of the ports industry in which the loans and grants will be made. Many of my hon. Friends with constituency involvements will want assurances that the amounts proposed will be adequate in the longer term for the considerable developments envisaged.
We certainly do not want to oppose or hold up the Bill, because we believe very much in the development of our ports. One of the achievements of the last Government was the increasing rate of investment in the ports industry. The Minister may cause one or two of his colleagues to raise their eyebrows at his rashness and precipitate speed in having the Second Reading today and the remaining stages of the Bill on Friday, but we shall not object, because we do not want the modernisation of the ports to be held up.
The matter was well summed up by Sir Arthur Kirby at the Press conference at which he introduced the Annual

Report of the National Ports Council on 7th July, when he said:
We make the point in the Report that, apart altogether from any reorganisation, a phase in port development and planning is coming to fruition. This is the phase during which major works have been undertaken to modernise port facilities which had remained little changed for several decades. One can now say that our ports have the tools which are required to provide a service fully up to modern standards, and all that now remains is for them to get on with the job; and getting on with the job will be largely a matter of resolving labour problems in cargo handling.
It is widely recognised that a great many capital works were undertaken in the past few years, and we want to do nothing that will hinder or delay that process.
But it is necessary to know what criteria will be applied when applications are made for loan approval when, as I am sure will happen, individual ports authorities and so on come forward with schemes that they think should have grants.
To get some guidance about Conservative thinking on the subject of the ports, I looked carefully at the document "A Better Tomorrow" which was issued as the Conservative manifesto. It said:
We will prevent the waste of £76 million on the nationalisation of the ports. We will end the uncertainty hanging over both large and small ports by giving them the freedom to build in competition with each other but co-ordinated through a strong central authority".
While one appreciates, as the Minister has said, that it would be premature for him to disclose today any of his thinking on the kind of structure for the industry, or the way in which grants and loans should be made in future, someone in the Conservative office should have given thought to this matter before those words appeared as the policy in the election campaign.
I hope that it is not the case that, having no regard to what they were likely to provide in the kitchen, the Conservatives just put this in the window as their most attractive menu to get people into the shop. It may well be that many people who bought the menu will find that they are getting quite a different diet from that which they contemplated. However, there should be some indication of what is meant by "co-ordinated through a strong central authority" and it would be helpful if we could be given


some idea of the lines on which this policy is to develop.
I should like in parentheses to deal with this reference to £76 million. This was the most misleading statement made by the Conservatives in the election, and that is saying a great deal. There was to be no payment on the implementation of public ownership of the ports. The £76 million was to provide for three elements. About £50 million was for the acquisition of the port businesses, which by common consent are the profitable part of the industry. The then Opposition bitterly opposed the acquisition of these businesses, which are clearly the remunerative part of the industry. Another £20 million was to be spent on the acquisition of the Manchester Ship Canal Company. Although I did not accept it, the whole of the Opposition's criticism was that we were acquiring those shares at less than their true value. The small residual sum was to be spent on acquiring the Bristol port, again at a figure which the then Opposition argued was too low a valuation.
The whole of the £76 million was for items which the Conservative Party said we were acquiring at less than their proper value. It could not have been a waste of public money, but a prudent investment on behalf of the British people, who would have acquired assets in ports which, by the standards of the Conservatives, were being acquired at less than the proper market price—although I do not accept that it was less than the proper market price. It was extremely misleading to say in the manifesto that this was a waste of £76 million.
We are here considering what may amount to large sums of public money without being given any guidance as to the policy and the steps to supervise the expenditure and to ensure the increasing efficiency of the ports industry. I know of no one knowledgeable about ports who is content with the present situation. Clearly, if the Conservative manifesto means anything, it means that the Conservative Party, at least in the pre-election situation, shared that opinion. The speeches of both the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend, the present Minister of Housing and Local Government, indicated that

that was their view. While I understand the pressure of time, I hope that going back to the Harbours Act, 1964, does not suggest that no changes are desired.
The recent report of the National Ports Council put the matter extremely clearly. In operations under the Harbours Act and in the loans presumably to be made under these new provisions, I hope that the Minister will be guided by the advice of the National Ports Council, which makes it clear what difficulties it has had in discharging its duty over the years. In paragraph 5 of its Report it said:
The Council, not being responsible for the financial results of port authorities, have not thought it right in assessing a potential successful profitable scheme at one port to weigh against the scheme any possible losses of revenue which might result at another port. Indeed, without any definite national plan, each scheme had to be considered on its individual merit. Furthermore, since the Council were not in a decisive capacity, no other course was practically possible.
The report went on:
The Council have always been conscious of their limited responsibility, especially in the field of industrial relations and they would subscribe to the view that the present organisation of the industry cannot in the national context he wholly satisfactory on a longterm basis. They are satisfied, therefore, that there is a case for a more effective form of national organisation. It is all to the good that the setting up of an N.P.A. will do much to remove the anomalies and unsatisfactory limitations within which the Council have had to operate without executive powers or responsibilities.
We are therefore bound to ask the Government for some guidance on their view of the future of the industry. Although we had protracted debates in Committee, the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary and his hon. Friends was always one of opposition, and we had no indication of the kind of organisation of the industry which they would like.
I remain convinced that the principles underlying the previous Government's Bill were right and that we will not get a satisfactory organisation in the ports unless we deal with them on three basic principles: public ownership, the acquisition of not merely the ports authorities, but the port businesses; and the introduction of an element of worker participation in the management of the industry.
As is well known, all the ports to have been taken over—and this would apply to any system for creating a strong central


body—are public trust or public bodies with no element of private ownership. The exceptions are the Manchester Ship Canal Company, which is a privately-owned company, although much of the drive and the finance derive from Manchester Corporation, and Bristol, a local authority. The major ports are all in some form of public ownership, but not a publicly accountable form of ownership and not with a structure conducive to efficient management. Certainly there is not the cohesion between various public trust bodies which is clearly necessary if one is to get a plan for the new capital developments for which loans and grants may be required, or anything else.
Therefore, while I personally believe in public ownership and welcome the opportunity to extend its sphere, I do not have a doctrinaire view that it is always the solution to a particular problem. The real doctrinaire people these days are those who oppose any proposal with an element of public ownership simply because it has that element. Now that the party opposite have achieved office, I would plead with the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend to try to consider the merits of a new scheme of organisation and put aside the political prejudices which they might have had when they went through the doors of St. Christopher's House.
Second, it is essential in any reorganisation—this may be equally applicable to the public money by way of grants or approval of loans for the ports—that the Ports Authority should manage and operate the ports business. A good deal of the industrial relations problems with which we are all familiar in this industry, together with the very serious financial situation of a number of our leading harbour authorities, stems from the fact that the profitable part of the cargo handling business was often in private hands, while the public body was providing the harbour facilities.
We were frequently given in our debates—we may hear it again today—the example of Manchester's success in terms of industrial relations and their financial record, as compared with a number of other ports. The real moral of Manchester was not, unfortunately, taken by the party opposite. The real difference between Manchester and the other ports

is that in Manchester there is a single employer and not the plethora of port businesses which give difficulty to management—

Mr. Stanley Orme: I am listening intently to what my right hon. Friend is saying about Manchester, but I cannot allow to pass his reference to good industrial relations. Unfortunately they do not exist in that port; I was hoping that public ownership would have considerably improved them.

Mr. Mulley: In the ports industry, as in most others, all these things are relative. Over the last decade in Manchester, there has possibly been less difficulty, because of the single employer concept, than in a number of other ports. I was thinking of Liverpool and London by comparison. But I agree that public ownership would have assisted the general climate of opinion.
That, of course, brings me to the third point—the importance of workers participating, as I propose they should, in the management of our ports. This is not the time for a long dissertation on the subject, but I believe that, in the long run, British industry of all kinds and at all levels must pay much more regard to bringing in workers—not merely by way of negotiating about hours and wages, but so that they are part of and understand all the problems of management. The experiment proposed in the Ports Bill should be preserved and built on in any reorganisation of the ports industry of the future. For historical reasons, the ports are a particular example of where this experiment should be tried and where I think it would have succeeded, although I concede that the same underlying arguments can be applied to other industries as well.
Certainly, before we decide to approve the Bill—I urge my hon. Friends not to oppose it, since I am sure that the Minister is right in saying that the amount of loans for which there is parliamentary approval is near to running out, and we do not want to delay the legislation—we should like to have a little more knowledge of the kind of ports industry envisaged, the kind of criteria which will be applied.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who has been extremely eloquent on this subject in the past, will do what,


understandably, his Minister could not do—give us a preview of the statement of Government policy in this field. If for any reason that is not possible, I am sure that, in deciding to conduct a bitter battle against my Ports Bill, they had at least thought what kind of industry they wanted before they went with a prospectus to the British people, and did not just write in these words to fill up the page—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary laughs, but I hope that we shall have some explanation of the cryptic phrase "co-ordinated through a strong central authority".
If we can get those assurances, obviously we shall be very interested, but if we cannot have a complete statement today, it would be of great interest and help not only to us but, I am sure, to the whole industry and the people in the ports, to know when a definitive statement of Government policy here will be made. With that, I invite my hon. Friends to give a Second Reading to the Bill.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: Considering that we are a maritime nation, we have been strangely neglectful of our ports and harbours. My own constituency is entirely composed of islands, which necessarily depend entirely on sea transport, yet even at this date there are several without any port or harbour or even a pier.
I was interested in what the Minister said about the development of vehicle ferries across the Irish Sea, because that is also a matter which should have been tackled long ago in the North of Scotland across the Pentland. I appreciate that it does not come directly under the Bill or the Minister's responsibility, but he clearly has an interest in all these kinds of maritime communications. I hope for some indication that the Government will, as a matter of urgency, examine not only the trans-ocean communications but those within the British Isles itself.
It is common form, when a Bill of this sort is presented, to ask whether it is enough, but it is a very pertinent question in regard to certain developments which are likely in the near future. The Minister said that we must not take this as necessarily laying down the lines of Government policy, that they might in-

troduce new legislation to deal with the whole question of ports and harbours. I appreciate that, but this is an occasion to draw their attention to the situation in Scotland.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned three developments in Scotland—the improvements to the entrance of Leith Harbour, the new lock at Grangemouth and the extensions to the container port on the Clyde. It is a strange fact that, at the moment, in spite of the amount of deep water which surrounds Scotland, particularly on the West, there is only one place at which a medium-sized passenger liner can tie up in normal circumstances, and that is under the command of N.A.T.O. and therefore generally unavailable. This is something of a reflection on our failure to develop deep sea routes.
Second, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the developments which are either being undertaken or about to be undertaken on the Forth? There is no doubt that masters of vessels have experienced difficulty in getting into the new basin at Leith, although it has not been built very long. What is the draft of vessels which it is expected now will be accommodated either at Grangemouth or at Leith?
The Grangemouth lock is almost on its last legs, and the question is whether the new one will be big enough to take the type of vessel which will want to use that rapidly expanding port. This links up with the general question of what has been called the "land bridge"—that is, the possibility of landing bulk cargoes on the West of Scotland, transporting them across land and shipping them to Europe from the East Coast ports. This is already happening to some extent. The container port on the Clyde is invaluable in this respect. It is the best container port in Britain because it is the one which can be most easily approached. The lower reaches of the Clyde are not overcrowded with shipping and there is plenty of deep water in which to manœuvre, which is the essential feature of a container port. If there are delays in getting to it, the advantage of quick loading and unloading disappears.
The Minister said that this port was to be extended. I take it that there is to be an extension of the face of the container port to enable it to take bigger


ships or two ships at once. But there is the very important matter of access to the container port. As the Minister well knows, the idea of container ports is that the cargoes are assembled inland. Greenock is not a very easy place to get to. If the container port is to be used to the maximum, it will not be enough to improve the face of the jetty. The whole system of communications will have to be expanded and improved, together with expansion of the port. This links up with the question of whether the Government are giving thought to the concept of bulk cargoes and large cargoes being landed on the West of Scotland and taken across land and, if so, what type and size of ship will use the Forth.
My next question relates to the general situation in the North of Scotland, an area in which there are many places with deep, sheltered waters. Scapa Flow, in my constituency, is an obvious place and there are others all down the West Coast. The oil port at Finnart is already making use of a very sheltered loch in which there is very deep water. I am told that the future of sea traffic to Europe will make this type of facility extremely valuable. Not only are the Continental ports overcrowded and very limited, particularly in draught, but even the Channel is becoming a very difficult piece of water for very large ships. There will be an increasing tendency for these ships to transfer their loads in less crowded waters and the West Coast of Scotland is a place where this might increasingly be done.
There is also the question of our possible entry to the Common Market. It would be disastrous if this meant that there will be an immense increase in the traffic going to the South of England and out of Dover and the Port of London and other Channel ports. It is very necessary to consider our direct links with the Continent. The area with which I am particularly concerned is Scotland, but the situation must be the same in the North-East of England. Even with the improvements, I should not have thought that Grangemouth and Leith offered very good facilities looking to the future. I do not wish to criticise them, but only now are they being brought up to reasonable standards. I do not know

how far the Minister will be able to assure us that he has looked ahead so as to ensure that they are in a position to cope with the traffic which might arise were we to enter the Common Market.
Going north of that, there are Dundee and Aberdeen principally which no doubt are excellent ports in their way, but if we go into the Common Market there may be a considerable increase in trade—for instance, in beef—from the North-East of Scotland which should be taken direct to the Continent, with cargoes being brought back from Rotterdam and other places to Scotland.
It is legitimate to raise these questions on this Bill because this is the first indication which we have had of the Government's thinking about the development of the ports and sea transport. If they are contemplating introducing other legislation, I urge them to remember the situation in Scotland and the great opportunities and problems which almost certainly will arise in the very near future. I am glad to say that considerable use is already being made of the Clyde and the improvements on the Forth, but, to my mind, greater expansion could take place. Therefore, while I support the Bill and the extra £50 million to which it refers—and that is not a firm sum;—it is only a limit—it is not such a great sum when we consider what needs to be done, not only in Scotland's ports, but in ports all round the country if we are to remain in the forefront of world trade.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. John Prescott: I crave the indulgence of the House so that I may embark on the ritualistic ordeal associated with maiden speeches which I hope will be neither too lengthy nor too boring.
Commander Pursey, whom I have the honour to succeed, made a distinct impression during his 25 years' service in the House. He was an orphan who joined the Royal Navy as a rating where his ability was quickly recognised. He was promoted eventually to the rank of commander—a considerable achievement in those days. This experience, combined with a period in journalism when he wrote on naval affairs, gave him an unparalleled range of experience and detailed knowledge of naval matters, from


anchors and chains to the broader philosophy of naval policy. He was able to use this to great effect in debates in the House on naval matters. Divorced of personal ambition, he sought to use his skill and energy to improve the lot of those less fortunate. Many will remember his efforts on behalf of orphans in the debates on the Royal Naval School for orphans at Greenwich.
The House may not fully appreciate the extent of Commander Pursey's constituency work, which included his efforts, against tremendous opposition, in bringing about the raising of the banks of the River Hull, whose continual flooding caused a great deal of anxiety and misery to people in the East Hull constituency. He was both colourful and controversial, and his presence will be sorely missed in the House.
Kingston upon Hull is the home of Britain's largest port. It is third in the value of tonnage handled and is surrounded by a diversity of industries of national and international repute. Their importance has been recognised by the number of awards which have recently been made to them for their export performance.
Hull is equally renowned for its advance health and welfare services, well-established comprehensive education and architecturally-awarded council housing estates built by its own direct-labour department. They are the evidence of the foresight and planning of a post-war Labour local authority.
However, Hull's greatest asset is its people whose warm Yorkshire hospitality and generosity and shrewd judgment of character and appreciation of value are universally renowned. Never was this so amply demonstrated than in the recent General Election when the Labour candidate was elected with no evidence of the national swing against the Labour Party. I like to think that this was due to the personal qualities of the candidate, although I am prepared to accept that the advent of Hull's first 12 months of rule by a Tory council since before the war in which rents were raised from £3 to £9 a week played no small part.
Kingston upon Hull has a consistent record of electing Members with seagoing experience and understanding. As long ago as 1890, it offered Samuel

Plimsoll the opportunity to represent it in this House. Commander Pursey served his period in the Royal Navy, whereas I served for 10 years as a seaman rating in the Merchant Service. In fact, I am the first seaman sponsored by the National Union of Seamen to be elected to the House. Of that I am particularly proud. I will endeavour to put the point of view of the British seafarer and that of the East Hull constituents, many of whom are seamen, particularly on legislation affecting the welfare of seafarers and the shipping industry. Indeed, I shall be pressing the Government to implement legislation to correct many of the faults which have been made obvious in the recent Reports of the Rochdale Committee of Inquiry into shipping, the Pearson Inquiry and the more recent safety report.
May I also advise the Government that the seamen sincerely hope that they will honour the promise of the previous Government, who in their much-awaited reform of the Merchant Shipping Acts promised to review the penal clauses within a three-year period. The seamen will not tolerate those penal clauses remaining in the Acts. I hope that the Government will take due note of this, particularly as this was the running sore which led to the problem of the 1966 strike.
It is fortunate and appropriate that I have been given the opportunity to make my maiden speech on a Bill directly affecting the future of Hull. No constituency is so dependent on the future growth and development of its port. Much of the local industry is in some way or other, directly or indirectly, associated with the development of a transport economy and the port of Hull.
The port covers seven miles of river bank, 12 miles of quays and 11 docks. The new £7 million container berth, which is evidence of its desire for greater trade, was recently opened by Her Majesty the Queen. It is situated on a major undeveloped estuary, recommended for consideration as a maritime industrial development area, ideally suited as the gateway to Europe and serviced by canals which transport over 50 per cent. of its exports and imports to the industrial heart of the Midlands and Yorkshire. It enjoys a potential not unlike that of Rotterdam 10 years ago.


The Port of Hull has all the assets but is prevented from success, like Cinderella, by her ugly sisters, represented in this case by the lack of capital and imaginative co-ordinated planning.
The Government could go some way in using their powers to raise the loans referred to in the Bill to correct some of the glaring examples of the failure to co-ordinate the overall planning of a port system and an overall transport network. Ports are purely the links between internal transport systems and sea transport systems. These sectors are part of a vertically integrated industrial system in which each part is vital to the operation of the whole.
Failure to appreciate that important principle has led to the building in Hull of a container berth which is required to pay for itself without the essential requirement of a container crane. Indeed, the Rochdale inquiry into the docks, reporting in 1962, pointed out in paragraph 280 of its Report that the ports of railway origin, of which Hull is one, should provide a choice of transport. Those who have taken the decisions concerning the development of Hull's port have taken this extremely literally and have proceeded to rip up all the railway lines on the dock, losing the vital traffic of coal and timber and providing no rail line on the new container port, which is one of the essentials of a container transportation system, resulting in the rundown of the railway and the shutting of workshops. The excuse which is continually given for these activities is a rundown of traffic, which is the direct result of faulty planning decisions. We have recently heard that a restriction is to be placed upon the freightliner centre, which is situated on the wrong side of the city. We are now, apparently, to lose or to have the freightliner services very much restricted. We shall certainly be saying something about this to the Minister.
The Port of Hull is serviced by, possibly, one of the worst road systems facing any port in the country. We will be pressing to have something done about the infrastructure, which includes the roads, on which the Government were elected. We hope to enjoy the benefit of road works. It is essential that we have immediate access to the industrial

hinterland, from where we must draw the cargoes for the very survival and expansion of the port.
In 1962, Lord Rochdale recommended the provision of a bridge crossing the river and said that this should be provided if the Midlands continued to expand and exports to Europe continued to develop. Both these things have happened. We therefore look to the Government to make a definite statement about a Humber bridge, which is essential to regional development and to the port.
In giving the Minister that advice, however, I must confess that it would fail to meet the essential ingredient which has been so lacking in the past: that is, developed, co-ordinated planning, which could be envisaged only by a National Ports Authority with executive powers. In presenting the Bill, the Government have made it clear that, as they promised, they intend to reject the essential provisions that were embodied in the previous Government's Bill and were designed to tackle the fundamental problems facing port development.
I should, therefore, like to point out to the Government that in their consideration of the alternatives, they should give due weight to the innate conservatism which bolsters traditional attitudes with little prospect of change among those who have mismanaged this vital sector of our economy. To my mind, this can be changed only by a fundamental reorganisation of the industry, beginning with public ownership and accompanied by the implementation of industrial democracy, so that the vast knowledge and experience of the port workers are fully utilised and there is a breaking-down of authoritarian management's attitude which is typical of both ports and shipping industries.
It is no coincidence that the criticisms made of the port industry by Lord Rochdale in his 1962 Report on the ports were followed and repeated almost word for word by the recent Rochdale Inquiry on shipping. Both industries are fragmented by both growth rates and the multiplicity of ownership, documents and procedures, contributing to their visible decline, and accompanied by bad industrial relations and low wages for dock workers until


they were recently changed by a Labour Government.
It is not my intention to discuss the present dispute, which is a further manifestation of the organisation of these industries. It should be noted by the Government that almost exactly the same problems are peculiar to both docks and shipping and, I suggest, for exactly the same reason. Both have a history of casual labour, controlled in the supply by the employer, disciplined by means of fines and penalties, plagued by a higher record of occupational accidents and deaths and further soured by the lack of welfare facilities and amenities. The means of trade union representation through shop stewards, so fiercely resisted by both these industries, has only recently been implemented.
As labour has become less cheap, both industries have found means of securing cheaper labour, with the exploitation of Asiatic seamen for shipping and, in the case of the Port of Hull, by the diversion of cargoes to fly-by-night non-registered ports such as Flixborough, Howden Dyke, New Holland and Whitby, using cheap labour, unsafe working practices and little capital investment which is required by the major ports to develop.
The Rochdale Inquiries on both ports and shipping found that one of the cardinal reasons explaining the failure of both these industries could be traced to the general low quality of management in those sectors. This has recently been confirmed ten years later in the Report on shipping. Private management has visibly failed in both these important sectors of our economy.
The only solution is to take both industries into public ownership in the interests of the nation. As a first step in regard to the docks, I suggest that the Government should implement Sir Arthur Kirby's recent suggestion to rid the docks of the private employers and go on further, I hope, to take the docks into public ownership. Those are the only sort of actions that will solve the major problems in both docks and shipping.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: It is always a pleasure for a veteran Member of this House to offer congratulations to a new

Member. Those which I offer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) are not merely the conventional expressions that are normal on these occasions. All who heard him will agree that his speech, on its merits, had he been a Member of 10 or 20 years' standing, would have commanded the attention of the House, combining, as it did, the fruits of personal practical experience and manifestly a good deal of research, with not a little wit.
It is one of our traditions that maiden speeches are not controversial. Whatever right hon. and hon. Gentlemen may think, I did not find my hon. Friend's speech in the least controversial, in the sense that I could not detect a single syllable from which I would dissent. I express, with more than conventional warmth, the conventional wish that we shall often hear my hon. Friend in our debates. I hope to have him for long with me in the battle which we on these benches will conduct to reverse the Government's policies for the ports and eventually, I am sure, successfully go back to a Ports Bill similar to, but rather better than, the one which died with the Dissolution.
I should like to associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) in extending a welcome and congratulations to the Minister. If we must have a Tory Government, I can put up with the right hon. Gentleman sitting there. We all knew him in the last Parliament and in previous Parliaments as a cheerful, swashbuckling back bencher. Many a buckle have I swashed against him, and the two of us have thoroughly enjoyed it.
I look forward with some trepidation to discovering whether his sharp, sometimes mordant, but always delightful, wit has its edges nibbled away by the cares of office. Indeed, I am sorry to say that I detected today, in the way that he ploughed through his brief without any of his past cracks, a certain unfortunate departure from his quondam effervescence into a ponderous solemnity. Without any personal unkindness, I hope that he will soon be back in his old place so that he can be cheerful again and enjoy himself as much as in the past.
As my right hon. Friend said, during the last Parliament the Conservative


Party's only policy with regard to the essential port transport industry was purely negative. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite did not like what the Labour Government were proposing to do. They said so fairly in clear and often strong terms. But at no stage did they ever suggest, by a single scintilla of information, what alternative they would put in place of the policy which they were condemning.
I saw a television programme about the docks last night. Taking part was a gentleman who was described as the spokesman of the Conservative Party. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary seem surprised. So was I. I wondered why one of them had not been chosen as the spokesman of the Conservative Party. Doubtless that is not their fault. However, this gentleman more or less admitted in terms that the Conservative Party had no policy. He said that they had now got to sit down and think out a policy.
That is not a great deal different from what the right hon. Gentleman said today. He said that he did not want to anticipate the results of a long look that they will have at the problems of the industry. I think that this is nonsensical. We do not need any research into the industry to discover what its problems are.
Over the last 15 years the industry has had more commissions, committees of inquiry, investigations and publication of facts than any other industry, except possibly crime and psephology. Apart from those two matters, this is our most investigated industry. It has been dug up by the roots more times than I can count, and exposed to public gaze.
In the decade from 1956 to 1966 there were five major and two minor inquiries into the industry. Out of that lot the Rochdale and Devlin Reports between them provided a completely comprehensive review of the industry. That review has since been up-dated by the successive Annual Reports of the National Ports Council, by the reports of many specialised studies commissioned by the National Ports Council, and by one which was commissioned by the British Transport Docks Board. They have been up-dated by the work of the

Modernisation Committee, and recently we have had the Bristow Report.
It does not say much for the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that in their years in opposition they could not find time to study all this factual material and they are now starting from scratch with a blank sheet of paper to find out about the port transport industry and what to do about it.
Unfortunately, the industry's problems cannot brook this delay. If we had time, I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, "God-speed with your studies". But we have not got the time. There are crucial, urgent problems in the industry which will not brook the leisurely studies of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. For one thing, while the Government are taking a year or so to do their highly belated homework, our competitors in the continental ports are not standing still. A great deal of research, development and new technological expertise is being put in. While the Government are enjoying their homework, we shall be falling further behind.
One thing that is universally agreed, whatever else we may differ about, is that the industry cannot carry on as it is now. That is manifestly obvious. Everybody knows it to be so. The trade unions in the industry know it to be so. The port employers know it to be so. Most of them were not only reconciled to the coming of nationalisation, but were positively welcoming it as providing a solution to problems with which they could not cope. That was true of most of the port employers, including the chairman of their association who is their spokesman in the current wage negotiations.
The most authoritative body in the industry, the National Ports Council, has said in the clearest terms that the industry cannot continue as it is. The Minister paid tribute to the Council. So did my right hon. Friend. I ask the Minister to remember that there are more years of experience in the port transport industry represented on that Council than he has days of experience in the industry. He really ought to take note when the Council says that there have to be fundamental changes and goes on to say, with becoming and fair modesty and clear understanding, that it is not competent to


make the necessary changes. The Council has said more clearly than anyone else that its powers and functions are inadequate to cope with the industry's problems.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has read the Council's Annual Report for 1969, which was published last week, from which my right hon. Friend quoted one or two passages. That Report not only underlines some of the major defects in the industry, but it also lists a number of ways in which the Council expected those defects to be remedied by the coming of public ownership which, it says, could have been remedied only by the kind of National Ports Authority provided for in the Labour Government's Ports Bill.
The language of the National Ports Council could not possibly be clearer. There is one passage in the report—my right hon. Friend quoted part of it, but I must quote it again—which encapsulates the whole thing. The report says:
… the present organisation of the industry cannot in the national context be wholly satisfactory on a long-term basis. They are satisfied, therefore, that there is a case for a more effective form of national organisation It is all to the good that the setting up of an N.P.A."—
this was written before the General Election—
will do much to remove the anomalies and unsatisfactory limitations within which the Council have had to operate without executive powers or responsibilities.
I have never made a speech as strong as that in favour of the nationalisation of the ports, and certainly I have never made one as authoritative and as convincing as that passage.
I want to refer specially to four problems in the industry at which the Minister ought to have a close look, because these are problems at which the Council has had a close look and which it says are not being coped with, and show no signs of being coped with.
The first is one which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, and that is overall planning, including the overall planning of the capital expenditure, for which the right hon. Gentleman is taking powers in the Bill to raise the money.

The report says, and again my right hon. Friend quoted one bit of this passage:
The Council would be the last to claim that what they have done"—
the Council sets out what it has done, and takes some justifiable pride in it—
adds up to a national ports plan.… Since the Council were not in a decisive capacity no other course was practically possible. By contrast, a National Ports Authority will have to be decisive.
The second of those four points concerns the important development called M.I.D.A.s, the maritime industrial development areas which, if they are carried out properly, may make a really startling contribution to economic growth in this country. This is the concept of a major industrial area linked to a large port, with, nearest the port, primary industries taking off the raw materials from bulk carriers at the port, and behind them secondary industries using the raw materials from the primary industries. There is a whole chapter about M.I.D.A.s in the Council's report, and it has something very clear to say:
In the longer term the studies of the M.I.D.A.s concept may result in advance provision for large industries, but in the shorter term the offer of adequate capacity will depend upon the liveliness and forward looking planning of the port boards, stimulated by a National Ports Authority …
There are not now to be ports boards. There is not now to be a National Ports Authority. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do to carry forward this important development of the maritime industrial development areas?
The third of the four points concerns research, and again the Council describes what it is doing, and the limitations upon what it is doing. Having done that, the Council admits freely:
… there remain wide gaps to be filled, not least because of the Council's limited rôle in relation to personnel in the ports.
The Council cannot solve the problem; nor would the problem be solved, the Report makes clear, if we change the National Ports Council into a National Ports Authority with wider powers, because the report says that, whether it is a council or an authority, it cannot fully carry out research unless it has an executive relationship and a control relationship with the chaps who work in the ports. The Council can do the pure


research, but the most important part of the research is the applied research, and the council cannot do that in the laboratory. It can do it only in the docks, but it cannot do it in the docks with its own personnel. The Council do it only with the dock managements and dock workers, and it cannot instruct the dock managers and workers to carry out any research work on its behalf.
Fourth, and last, is the problem to which my right hon. Friend referred, and which I suspect will crop up again in the debate, that of labour relations. Nobody can doubt that labour relations all round in the port transport industry leave a great deal to be desired. Nobody can doubt that something must be done about them, and on this I propose again to quote shortly from the Council's report. The Council thinks, as I do, that this is the most important problem facing the industry; the one which needs to be solved, because unless it is none of the other developments such as technical training, research, capital investment and planning will get us very far.
Referring to the Bill of the last Session, the Council says:
… the Bill dealing with the acquisition of port businesses within the nationalised sector … carries with it the possibility of the most important change of all, the development of a new framework for the employment of labour in the industry …
That is the most important problem facing the industry at the moment. That is particularly the case because of the structural changes in the labour force and the huge rundown in the labour force due to technical developments, and here I make possibly my last quotation from the report, because we ought to learn a lot from these experienced gentlemen on this Council.
The report says:
The Council are not equipped with powers to plan manpower recruitment, selection and development for the industry but they are nevertheless aware that this is one of the most intransigent problem areas … Indeed, with some 25 per cent. of the industry's managers, 30 per cent. of its foremen and supervisors and nearly 30 per cent. of its dock workers over the age of 55 … it is apparent that it will be necessary to establish planned recruitment and management development policies if the industry is to develop a well-balanced labour force in the next quarter-century …. The lack of a recognised career structure throughout the docks … is a constant handicap to mutual understanding. The Council suggest that only an organisation with greater powers to set

standards than they possess at the present time will be able to make the real progress needed.
To my mind that is the most important thing that the Ports Bill was about. That was the most important element in the Bill. That was the most important element in the previous Government's policy for the port transport industry, and I think that as a concomitant of that we should have been able, through the development of participation procedures, to get into a position of substituting participation for autocracy, and co-operation for conflict.
The only thing that saddened me about the long Committee stage on the Ports Bill, during which I had one or two battles with the Parliamentary Secretary—it was a good Committee stage; we had our bash-about, but that is what we were there for—was that the Opposition, as they then were, were so hostile to the Bill that it seemed to me at times that they were arguing for the maintenance of conflict rather than the creation of co-operation.
I remember the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who has now been translated into a different plane in heaven but who was then a very active member of the Committee, saying:
Strong, powerful, trade unions should have the right to advance their own interests in their own traditional ways, using traditional weapons, disciplines and responsibilities.
I agree with every word of that. The hon. Gentleman went on to define what he meant by "traditional weapons". He referred to:
consultation, negotiation, strikes … from time to time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D; 19th March, 1970, c. 1355–1356.]
Later, the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) said the same thing. If we have a strike this week—if our hopes for tomorrow's meeting are dashed—whoever can complain about it it cannot be the hon. Member for Cathcart or the hon. Member for Tavistock, because that is the sort of thing that they seemed to be urging.
I agree that we must have a strong trade union movement, using its traditional weapons, but it is a pity that we could not at least, in 1970, start to see to what extent we can limit the use


of those weapons and create a situation in which the need to use them is lessened.
If through this delay in making their study—if, through doctrinal obstinacy, ignorance or inaction—the Government allow the present uncertainties, inefficiency and frictions in the ports to go on, they will bear a very grave burden of guilt.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hughes: This Bill asks for the authorisation to spend money. As Members of Parliament we are entitled to ask for what purposes the money will be spent. It would seem that in terms of policy the cupboard is bare. The Tory Party, as usual, seems intent on retaining the inefficient and inadequate system still to be found in the ports industry. There is still some truth in what Sir Arthur Kirby said in March, 1965, namely, that
To anyone making no more than a cursory study of the ports it must surely seem that if we had set out to devise the most difficult way to work our ports we could not have succeeded better than the existing state of affairs.
I point to the Labour Party policy document, presented by a body of which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) was chairman. In passing, I would point out that my hon. Friend's expertise on these matters is now recognised throughout our ports. Paragraph 3 of the document reads:
The industry has been shaped by historical accident rather than economic planning and this has resulted in some startling anomalies:

A. Various types of port ownership.
B. A marked difference in the powers and constitutions of the port authorities.
C. A fragmentation of responsibility for port functions.
D. A multiplicity of agencies and documents at every stage of port life.
E. The maintenance of a system of casual employment."

That seems to be the situation even now, despite certain improvements made in the past five years.
I was one of those hon. Members who spent no fewer than 94 hours in Standing Committee on the Ports Bill, which was an attempt to bring a measure of rationality to the ports industry. It was essentially a mild Measure, but it attempted to tackle the difficulties to

which Sir Arthur Kirby has so often referred. Those of us who supported the Bill were nevertheless attacked from time to time as Maoists, as Trotskyists, as wanting worker soviets, and so on. To my way of thinking those attacks portrayed the Tory mind, which has never advanced beyond the nineteenth century.
I venture to suggest that if the Bill had become law our ports industry today could look forward to a much brighter and more confident future, as could all the workers employed in the ports. Our economy would certainly have been better if the Bill had become law. I also venture to suggest that if it had become law the present dispute would have been headed off long before now.
In opening the debate the Minister of Transport indicated that there was no policy vacuum. In other words, he indicated that it was merely a case of "back to 1964". Just over a week ago we had the report of the National Ports Council which, in paragraph 20, said—referring to the content of the Bill:
The Council have always been conscious of their limited responsibility especially in the field of industrial relations and they would subscribe to the view that the present organisation of the industry cannot in the national context be wholly satisfactory on a long-term basis. They are satisfied, therefore, that there is a case for a more effective form of national organisation.
To a large extent that was what the Ports Bill was about. This small Bill makes no attempt to tackle the difficulties of the industry; it merely asks for a blank cheque. But spending money will not necessarily improve industrial relations—a factor that is essentially the crux of the problems facing the industry. What we need is, first, public ownership of the ports transport industry and, secondly, a major extension of the measure of industrial democracy that already exists in the running of the industry; and a building on the experience of 25 years of joint operation of the register and of discipline and of the Dock Labour Scheme.
From debates that I have heard on the port industry and from those in which I have participated—added to my experience on the Standing Committee of the Ports Bill—I have gained the impression that the Tory Party has little conception of the real problems facing the industry. Hon. Members opposite seem to be turning back to the days of Adam Smith.


They call for competition, but cannot they see that there is a host of competition in terms of the ports on the other side of the Channel—such a short distance away? We are too small a country to be able to afford all these little tinpot concerns in our ports.
As a South Wales Member I noticed particularly that in his appointments to the Ministry of Transport the Prime Minister has appointed two West Country Members. Although I congratulate them on their appointment—

Mr. Orme: They are not here, so my hon. Friend cannot do that.

Mr. Hughes: —I wonder whether it is by accident or design. I am a little suspicious about these appointments. I see that the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) has just returned. I was about to ask whether the appointment of two West Country Members to the Ministry of Transport means the opening of the old vendetta between South Wales and the Port of Bristol. Of course, I appreciate that many promises have been made to the Port of Bristol for purely narrow electioneering purposes. Hardly a weekend went by in the months and years before the General Election without a senior Member of the Conservative Party being in Bristol and making these promises about development schemes for the port.
Therefore, is part of the money in the Bill to be allocated for a new form of Portbury scheme? I sincerely hope that there will not be a further attempt to play politics with our ports in the Bristol development. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), when Minister of Transport, went into this matter in detail and pointed out Bristol's lack of industrial hinterland and the fact that exports were generated within a very short radius of the port. I hope that the present Ministers will maintain the same level of impartiality.
Also, any tinkering with haphazard developments in the Bristol Channel could have grave effects on the long-term planning of the area. There is, of course the M I.D.A. site to be considered, because, together with Humberside, and the Thames and Medway area, the flats to the east and west of Newport was one of the three key areas to be considered

for this type of project, which could provide undeveloped land for large-scale industry alongside deep water, so that the large carrier ships which are now in use could berth nearby. Nothing should be allowed to jeopardise such wonderful potential, even if it is essentially for the long term.
The Bill is essentially about money. I wanted to draw the Minister's attention to the situation in my part of Newport. There have been some technical difficulties with the lock gates which have necessitated a partial closure of the docks. It can receive only small ships at present and this has been the case for the last two months. From 1st August, the docks will be closed completely for three months for essential repairs. This brings important problems to the town and particularly to the port workers and their families. May we be assured that the cost will be no impediment to carrying out these repairs speedily, so that Newport docks can be reopened at an early date, to prevent long-term damage to its prospects?
Therefore, the new Tory Ministers have a very difficult job on their hands, particularly in persuading the people of South Wales that they are concerned about the welfare of the area. The people of South Wales have an abundance of experience to the contrary.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I am pleased to take part in this debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) has stated the Labour case very clearly in relation to the Ports Bill and this Bill, which is a financial memorandum for necessary payments. In fact, it is in place of the Ports Bill, which a Labour Government would have put on the Statute Book: that would have made this form of payment unnecessary and would have allowed much wider development in our ports.
I want to speak particularly about the Manchester Ship Canal, which, although it is called the Manchester Ship Canal runs mainly through the City of Salford, part of which I have the honour to represent. This issue raised a good deal of controversy in our debates on the Ports Bill and inspired the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) to make some of his most flamboyant


speeches in defence of it as a bastion of private enterprise within the National Ports Authority. In fact, as my right hon. Friend said, the Manchester Ship Canal Company is composed of various facets, including Manchester Corporation and private shareholders.
The hare raised by the then Opposition about public ownership of the canal and the terms of compensation was out of all proportion to the facts. I received 400 letters from shareholders and, after sending them the Ministerial reply, I received not one complaint from any of the shareholders who had sent to me the photostat letter with which the company had supplied them.
I have recently talked to the dockers who work on the Manchester Ship Canal. When my right hon. Friend was talking about labour relations in the docks, which are vitally important, and are highlighted by the present negotiations, he referred to the industrial relations in Manchester. As I said, that is only relative, because the dockers on the Manchester Ship Canal are very disturbed about industrial relations. This can be confirmed by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) who visited the port only recently and spoke with all his authority to several hundred dockers, who impressed upon me and my hon. Friend the fact that the urgent need for ports nationalisation was not just to improve the economic structure and the method of production and use of the ports but also the industrial relations, which had deteriorated to such an extent. The present cavalier action of the Manchester Ship Canal Company is deprecated by the port employees, and I was hoping that the Ports Bill would have eradicated this.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made a distinguished maiden speech. It is often said that maiden speeches bring a breath of fresh air to the House. This one had a tang of the sea and the cutting edge of the North-East Coast. I am certain that many hon. Members opposite will feel that cutting edge in the months to come, when many of these issues will be much more fully debated.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Transport. Not long ago he was sitting in Opposition on the bench

behind the one from which I am speaking and we frequently exchanged pleasantries, particularly when debating Finance Bills. I hope that his waspish sense of humour, if I may call it that, has not completely disappeared and that he will stand up well to the great pressure which my hon. Friends and I are bound to put on him in future about the ports industry.
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that time and again we shall return to the subject of rationalising and modernising this industry and the arguments for taking it into public ownership. It is on this industry that not only our exports but our whole economy depends. I hope the port workers will put as much pressure on the Government as they put on us when we were in office, though only when a Labour Government are back in power will all the vital changes that need to be made in this industry really be implemented. We are seeing the tip of the iceberg now. We warn the Minister that we shall be returning time and again to the fundamental and basic issue of the ports.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), being an old colleague of mine, will not mind my saying that I had the curious feeling as I listened to him that by some sort of levitation I was not in this Chamber but had been wafted on high up to the Committee Floor and was, in Room 10, listening to one of his speeches about port nationalisation. I enjoyed every word of it but we are really talking about the money that needs to be spent on the ports in the near future.
Seated near to me is my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) who made an eloquent maiden speech. Maiden speeches are always sincere but they are by no means always so eloquent. He will be here long after I have left this House. He is a young man and can expect to be 20, 30 or 40 years in this place. After all, his seat is not only safe but cast iron safe. They do not count his votes. They shovel them in.
Commander Pursey used to be called a colourful and controversial figure. I am sure that many of the phrases which used to apply to Commander Pursey will in time be applied to our new colleague who


represents Kingston-upon-Hull, East. After all, he is the first hon. Member on this side to be upon the sponsored panel of his union. Years ago we had Havelock Wilson—not on our benches.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) widened the debate somewhat by speaking of Britain being a maritime nation. I intervened earlier to mention something that affects not only my constituency but all fishing areas. When I intervened the Minister could not answer me. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will speak on this topic later. I refer to the fact that the fishing docks do not have the capital expenditure which applies to other major docks.
In my part of the country, in Hull, we have the third biggest port. I welcome the fact that in the last five years the Government have spent £19 million on the Hull docks, including King George V dock and the Queen Elizabeth Dock. Our filleters and other fish dock workers do an excellent job and they are represented by my union, the General and Municipal.
As the fish dock workers engage in their daily tasks they are swept by northeasterly winds of gale force that blow off the North Sea. The Minister might look at these conditions in the fish docks and he will agree that facilities need bringing up-to-date. If we are a maritime nation, we are also a fishing nation. We have a magnificent fishing fleet but we do not have the on-shore facilities and conditions to match the new vessels mainly stern-fishers which we send out to catch fish.
Comment has been made on the Common Market. No estuary is better placed, by geography and oceanography, than the Humber from the point of view of supplying goods to and receiving goods from Common Market countries. We have Europe and the Baltic before us and we have our roll-on and roll-off container services available. We are an are par excellence from the Common Market point of view, and I hope that the Minister will pay us a visit. He will be extremely welcome, and he will see at first hand the favourable position which we occupy, though we need the good will and good services of the Government to expand as we should.
I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East about the siting of the freight terminal. In the West Hull constituency there are two cargo docks and a fish dock. Nevertheless, most of the cargo goods come into East Hull Docks beyond the Hull river. Although there is this freight terminal in my constituency, goods are landed on the other side of the river. Many of the railway lines have already been taken up. We have the ludicrous situation of timber and such like cargoes being docked in East Hull and having to be taken through the middle of the city, causing congestion to traffic and being taken further past West Hull to the Al and the Ml. This is a glaring example of inefficient and inadequate planning.
As a major port, we are the gateway to Europe, but we ask the Minister to consider particularly the fishing sector. Fleetwood, besides Hull, needs to be looked at as do Grimsby, Lowestoft and many Scottish ports.
Sir Arthur Kirby, of the National Ports Council, has been mentioned in this debate more than once. Whatever he says is worth listening to. I knew Arthur Kirby 20 years ago when he was in charge of docks, harbours and communications in East Africa and did a magnificent job, with the High Commission in what was formerly Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika. I commend to the Minister one thing that Sir Arthur has said. He has said that each port should have a single authority; none of this huggermugger of 10, 20, 50 or 80 employers, but a single employer.
At our fish dock at West Hull we have fish porters who are employed by the vessel owners whereas all the other port workers are registered by the docks board. We should like the new Minister to carry out the job which was suggested in the Committee on the defunct Ports Bill. The fish "bobbers" are members of my own union, the G.M.W.U., and they want to join in the same ports labour scheme that all the other dock workers enjoy in Hull. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will note this suggestion.
I make this most parochial speech quite unashamedly, because those of whom I speak are my people. I hope that the Minister will look at the physical conditions of all the fish docks in the


United Kingdom and see that they get equality of treatment with the cargo docks. I also hope that he will give specific consideration to special terms of the working conditions of the fish "bobbers" of the dock in my constituency.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I believe this to be a unique occasion. It is the first time, and may be the last time, when all three Hull Members speak from the same side in the same debate and on the same subject. That is quite right and proper, because all our constituencies are linked with the port—with our lighterage, our commercial and fish docks, interests. It is therefore right that we should speak with a single voice about the problems affecting our own important port, but affecting also the port industry as a whole.
Before I develop my speech I have one observation to make which I am sure the Minister would have made had he now been on this side of the Chamber. With this particularly important industry, with its workers regarded, as the miners were regarded immediately after the war, as dangerously militant people in the industrial work force, with so much heated opposition in the last Parliament to the Ports Bill, we have not heard one backbencher opposite speak on this Measure. It is most regrettable.
I think of some of my friends who were replaced at the General Election—John Ellis, for instance, who represented Bristol, North-West, and others of my friends who represented Preston, Dover, Southampton and Ipswich. Competition then on the Government side to join in a debate was so keen that they would have wanted to intervene even for only a few minutes. Yet today not even the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) has spoken from the Government benches. This is typical of the attitude the Conservative Governments have taken towards the ports in the past, and I think that the present Government are likely to take the same attitude in the future.
The Bill meets existing commitments, and provides, as a holding operation for

the next two years, a paltry £50 million—in order to have something in the kitty against whatever future commitments there may be. When we came into power in 1964 the average investment in the dock industry was about £18 million a year. By 1970 it had risen to £50 million—a considerable improvement. What we have not had yet is any indication from the Government of their future thinking on the ports. How do they see the ports develop? What is to be their principal function? My right hon. Friend said that all the Government could say about it was in "A Better Tomorrow"—and what a mixed up contradiction that was! What sort of competition do they envisage if there is a strong central authority in control? Where is the investment to go, and how is the industry to develop? We are entitled to know such things.
The Government, with all their talk, and with all the working parties and subcommittees which the Prime Minister set up, have come here on issue after issue with no set pattern for anything and, in particular, for something of such vital concern as the docks. We have a right to expect something better from the Government. When we were in Government, we did much to clear the relics of a bad industrial history. We were able to have serious talks on the second stage of the Devlin scheme, and we got rid of the casual nature of dock employment as a result of the 1966 Act, one of the most important Acts passed, which paved the whole way to modernisation, improved labour relations and modern techniques to be used in the docks. Until we got rid of casual labour we had an industrial jungle and could get nowhere.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) has said, the industry has a tremendous imbalance in its age structure, quoting Sir Arthur Kirby's report that we must get the register opened again for recruitment. But in present circumstances, dock workers will be suspicious of the effects of these new techniques on earnings and on their own prospects unless we have a definitive statement of what is to happen. We could then open the register and get the infusion of young people at all levels which will give us the proper age balance and the continuity we need. Instead, we


have the Minister trying considerably to restrict the area of debate.
It is because of existing suspicion that we need a clear statement on the future of the employer-employee relationship. We must have a system in which there is only one employer. The 1966 Act went a long way to getting rid of many anomalies. Nevertheless, it had some important anachronisms and defects. For example, the sharing of workers between one employer and another can lead to industrial dispute and discontent in connection with the awarding of forms of work which attract different rates of pay.
These are some of the things which have to be met. They can be met only if we have one employer of labour, get to a realisation of stage 2 of the Devlin proposals, and get certainty in the docks now that the old Ports Bill has gone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston up Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made a notable maiden speech. I say that not only because I have to travel up and down the country with him by train every week, but because it is true. He has not only a wealth of experience, but the ability to get out very complex and difficult ideas so simply that even I can understand. That is a considerable ability and valuable not only for this House but for his constituents and people generally. Hon. Members may have been surprised at the quality of his maiden speech, but if they had listened to him as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and I have done, they would not have been surprised.
My hon. Friend made the point about the use of unregistered ports for off-loading cargo and then the vessels being taken to registered ports for the rest of the cargo to be taken off. That is an abuse of public investment. It is using the publicly-owned ports as a convenience for the shipper of goods. We ought to make very strict regulations to ensure that ships should not be able to use publicly-owned ports and the facilities provided by the taxpayer purely as a convenience. Severe restrictions should be put on the use of ports where there is unregistered labour. It is not only an abuse of the taxpayer and of persons working in the docks. It affects their wages and employment. Very often these men are working for rates of pay considerably lower than registered workers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West spoke about the future of M.I.D.A.s. On this we ought to have a definitive statement from the Government. Although my hon. Friend extolled the virtues of Hull he left out one of the most important aspects—the estuary with its deep-water facilities, and the great advantages this has for an an expansion of an oil terminal and bulk ore cargo traffic. There is great need for an examination of the M.I.D.A.s idea particularly in relation to Humberside.
What is to be the future of our ports? Are they to be set in abrasive competition one against the other depending on from where the vested interest comes? Or are we to treat the whole of the United Kingdom as an enormous M.I.D.A.s. and use the limited resources we have as a nation in the best possible manner by planning, careful execution and building up of the infrastructure properly? This will be the keynote in the development of our docks in future. It was sadly lacking in the years up to 1964 and was only just beginning with the provisions of the Docks and Harbour Act of 1966 and the lamented Ports Bill of this year. It is something about which we shall have to know.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in his closing remarks touched on a theme I wish to develop, because I am primarily concerned with getting information. A matter of interest on which anyone might philosophise for a moment is how far back our thinking often is in relation to practice and how difficult it is to keep abreast of practice.
I recognise this among my colleagues in the Socialist movement. We like to think of ourselves as progressive in our thinking, but on many things our thinking is behind the practice which has developed about us. If I can say this about my hon. Friends I can say it with greater emphasis about hon. and right hon. Members opposite. Practice goes ahead despite us in many cases, certainly despite our understanding of that practice, while we keep reiterating the old theories and dogmas. I am rather afraid that hon. Members opposite will find themselves compelled time after time, despite what they think they believe, to act in ways contrary to those imagined beliefs. This


will work out on the question of docks and harbours and what kind of national policy we are to pursue regarding harbour and dock facilities.
We must recognise that changes are taking place and have taken place which will certainly completely outmode the facilities which exist at present. If hon. Members opposite think that it is merely a question of setting harbour authority against harbour authority and that out of this general competition the best facilities will emerge for the country, they will very quickly find that they are completely out of date. It is already being found that as a nation we have to think of the relatively few points of entry and exit of the country and how best we can utilise the facilities we have—natural facilities or facilities which arise from the fact that certain areas are near to other areas.
I am thinking particularly of the Clyde estuary and the Forth estuary and their relationship to Scotland as a whole and also to the United Kingdom as a whole. I have not generated these thoughts out of my own head, but from what I have heard and seen it seems that there are certain natural advantages in that part of the United Kingdom which ought to be developed in the interests of the whole kingdom. I was happy that when the Minister listed some of the projects for which this Bill will enable money to be found he mentioned the container development on the Clyde estuary at Greenock. That has been a very successful venture. It started with facilities for one container ship but it was soon found that facilities were needed to enable two ships to come in together.
We have the facilities in terms of depth of water, sheltered water and no question of tides, and we have exceedingly good industrial relations there. Perhaps one should keep one's fingers crossed but for a very long time the industrial relations have been exceedingly good. There has been much expedition in the handling of ships and this has impressed the various shipping lines. One after another of the shipping lines have taken decisions to call regularly at this container port. So I was glad to hear that the Bill will enable the existing plans to be fulfilled.
These plans consist of more than the mere extension of the container berth

facilities. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said that it is not just facilities at the docks. There is the problem of moving goods into the hinterland. One of the developments for which the Clyde Port Authority has pressed and received sanction is the development of the railway system to come right into the docks. I do not claim to be conversant with all the details, because it is not in my constituency, but I understand that the Port Authority must find a substantial part of the cost of making it possible to take freight liners right into the dock to transport goods throughout the country. How do the Government view this? Do the provisions made for extending the container berth facilities relate also to the rail transport facilities behind the dock which are so necessary if the project is to proceed?
I come to a point which is particularly important to me, because I represent the main steel-producing area of Scotland. Some time ago the Clyde Port Authority proposed to build a deep water ore terminal at Hunterston at an estimated cost of £12 million. I know that we have not yet had a decision. The Steel Corporation has stated in principle that it wishes the development to take place. If it does not take place and if the building of facilities for bringing ore in are not begun speedily, the Scottish steelmaking industry will be in for a rough time; the existing steel-making industry will be phased out—over a lengthy period, admittedly—because existing facilities just will not enable the industry to meet the conditions that exist in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the world. The present facilities are meeting the needs at the moment, but those facilities are quickly becoming inadequate and it is essential that a decision be taken quickly on the deep water terminal question and it is important that we know whether the Authority will be able to carry on with its proposed project of building a deep water terminal. I hope to receive information about this.
The opinion is held virtually unanimously in Scotland that, apart from the nationalising of the ports, the Clyde and Forth Authorities should merge and form one authority. This view has been strongly advocated by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), which is


not a labour organisation. Influential members of the Scottish Branch of the Confederation of British Industry also think along these lines. When representatives of the Scottish Branch of the Federation gave evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on 15th December, 1969, this question—No. 2,777—was put to them:
If the Clyde and Forth were brought together under a single unified control, this would seem to be something you would favour?
Mr. Miller, who led the team of representatives, replied:
It is under consideration at the present moment. We have not expressed a view, but the individual views round this table would be yes.
In reply to the question:
This is a measure you would urge the Members for Scotland, all of us irrespective of party, should push ahead with?
The answer was, this time by Mr. Grant, the Secretary of the Scottish Branch of the Confederation, "Yes". So both the chairman and the secretary made definite statements of support for the merging of the two Authorities.
Perhaps even more important, both authorities wish to merge, because they could then function in a way which would be of immense benefit to Scottish industry as well as to the United Kingdom as a whole. I do not know whether this has been made public, but it has been put to me. It has been put to me, for instance, that with the developments now taking place in terms of big ships a regular shipping line might have a ship crossing twice a week, unloading at the nearest port of call—the Clyde—with goods being sent across the narrow belt of land that forms the central belt of Scotland and loaded on to ships at Grangemouth or Leith for transhipment to Northern Europe. This has been called "ocean span", which is perhaps an ambitious title. If these two Authorities could merge, Canadian and American shipping companies would be able to deal with one authority in Britain and not two authorities. Ships are becoming larger.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is straying a little far from the rather more narrow confines of the Bill. I should be obliged if he would return to the strict terms of the Bill.

Mr. Lawson: I would not wish to question your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in view of the extent of the discussion which has taken place I find it difficult to see in what respect I have strayed beyond what seems to have been in order up to the present. To bring myself within order, I am talking in terms of expenditure on harbour and dock facilities, of the possibilities of development, and what the Government should have in mind.
I began by saying that, very often, practices go ahead of our thinking. One practice going ahead just now is the building of bigger and bigger ships, ships which will spend more time at sea, the economics of their operation to a large extent determining that they are in harbour for only short periods. In the autumn of last year, the shipbuilding division of Vickers released details of an atomic-powered ship which was visualised as potentially as large as 450,000 tons. I do not say that such a vessel will appear tomorrow or even next year, but the evidence is that ships are becoming bigger and faster, and the ports will have to handle them much more expeditiously than hitherto.
Our facilities on the Clyde are, so far as I am able to learn, in no way behind anything else, but one of the great advantages which Northern Europe has had over our own country has been the great development at Rotterdam. I understand that Rotterdam will take ships up to about 200,000 tons and that it might be possible to extend on that. But one of the problems confronting Rotterdam is that ships have to reach it either up the English Channel or round the North of Scotland and across the North Sea, and vessels larger than 150,000 tons going up the English Channel already have serious difficulties. This being so, it seems to me, and to many others, that it is urgently necessary to press ahead with the development of our facilities on the West Coast of Britain to handle the very largest ships likely to sail the seas.
I return to my requests for information. Do the financial arrangements now proposed permit the Clyde Port Authority to go ahead with the development of rail facilities as well as container berth facilities, and would the Clyde Port Authority, if the decision be taken to proceed, be enabled under the Bill to go ahead with


the building of the deep-water ore terminal? Finally, what is the Minister's view about the coming together of the two port authorities if they themselves express the desire to do so? Quite apart from any prejudices which one may have about nationalisation, would the Minister bless it and enable the amalgamation to take place quickly? I assure him that it seems to be the opinion of most people in Scotland who have given thought to the matter that the two authorities should combine.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: First, I apologise to the Minister for not being present throughout his speech. I heard only part of what he had to say and then had to go to another meeting. I apologise to him and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), and I hope that they will accept it.
I have grapsed the drift of the speeches which were made, and I understand the reasons for the Bill, but I regard this as a sad day for the House and the country. Instead of an important Bill which would really have modernised our ports and ensured that vie had a system of national investment to make our industry as good as, or better than, the European, all we have before us is an amendment to a previous Act so that we may continue ticking over with the situation as it is now. I had great hopes that we should have passed the Ports Bill and thus made real strides towards the genuine modernisation of our ports.
This Bill is very much an interim Measure. It cannot be anything else. It cannot of itself make any long-term contribution to the future of the British ports industry. It is interesting to recall that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), now a junior Minister at the Ministry of Technology, came to Liverpool a year or so ago, at the request, I believe, of the Chamber of Commerce, and produced a report. He was there about two days and then came up with a report on the future of the port of Liverpool. He said in his report that public ownership was totally unnecessary and that what we had to do was to give free enterprise a chance in the port of Liverpool. Free enterprise has now got that chance in Liverpool.

I shall be watching the situation closely to see what free enterprise does in the Port of Liverpool and what contribution the Government make towards the development of the port. In the past, free enterprise has totally failed the Port of Liverpool, as it has failed the nation through our ports industry.
We have a series of problems which must be aired and on which it is important to know the Government's attitude. If we are not to have the sort of planned national investment envisaged under the Ports Bill, what will happen, for example, about the Port of Liverpool and the Summers steel works near Chester? What will happen to the proposal which has been bandied about for some time that there should be a deep-water berth able to take the iron ore ships which are essential if there is to be development of both the Port of Liverpool and the steel industry in North Wales? What ideas have the Government on that subject? It is true that the project has not been fully worked out on Merseyside either, but many people have been concerned about it for a long time, and I want to know the Government's view.
The question of labour relations has been discussed at some length in the debate. In the ports now, modernisation is going ahead—part of it is containerisation and palletisation—and this is leading to a reduction in the number of dockers required to do particular jobs. In the port of Liverpool there has been a fairly rapid reduction in the number of dockers. The dockers are now saying, as they did in San Francisco on the West Coast of the United States when they, as it were, sold their rule book, "If we are to have modernisation, we wish to participate in the benefits of it".
In Liverpool the shop stewards have put forward a proposal—a long-term proposal, though some people thought that it was a sort of overnight scheme—for £60 a week for 20 hours. Some people thought that a fantastic suggestion, but if the number of dockers is to be run down so that the labour force is almost halved within a matter of years, obviously they wish to benefit in the modernisation processes. It is not silly to suggest that there should be a reduction in hours, and that if extra profits are to be made the dockers should receive their just reward for being prepared to agree to


the modernisation of their industry. It is an essential part of the modernisation process that there should be modernisation of labour relations just as of the docks themselves.
The shop stewards in Liverpool have been proved to be essential and a very important part of the improved industrial relations on Merseyside. We did not have shop stewards until the modernisation schemes were introduced. We often hear statements about all sorts of difficulties in the docks, but people do not seem to understand that because of the system of shop stewards which now exists many of those problems are ironed out before they cause dispute and trouble. The system of shop stewards has been proved to be absolutely correct. I am glad that it is developing, and I hope that it will continue to grow.
The Port of Liverpool has a number of problems. One which could well get worse is our declining trade over the years—not in certain spheres, but in passenger traffic. A number of our great companies have gone to Southampton and elsewhere. If we enter the Common Market we could face much more serious problems, because trade will obviously be oriented towards Europe. Liverpool, a west coast port, will face the problem of getting the goods that come in over to the east coast, many of them to be shipped straight to Europe. We must ask the Government whether they have any ideas on how they envisage the future of the Port of Liverpool in the Common Market set-up if we enter the Common Market. I am sure that they have not at this stage, but that is not their fault because they have not been in for long enough. It is not an academic question for us. It is a matter of great importance because, despite all the new industries brought to Merseyside, the people of Liverpool and Merseyside accept that the prosperity of our area still largely rests upon the prosperity of the port. If the port is not prosperous, Merseyside is not prosperous, despite the new industry. It is essential that we should have positive ideas on this.
This is a sad day for the workers in the ports and for the future of the ports. I well remember the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), now the Parliamentary Secretary, making a

statement in a discussion before the General Election, which I said had without doubt ensured my return to the House. I am certain that he contributed towards that, because the dockers in my area voted solidly for the Labour Party to ensure that we had public ownership of the ports. They will be bitterly disappointed that we are discussing the Bill before us instead of a Bill that would really put the ports on a proper, modernised basis.
But we have not heard the last of the demand for public ownership—and not because it is merely a dogma which we on this side of the House trot out. We have had private enterprise in the ports, and it has largely failed. If we are to have a proper, modernised port system with nationally-planned investment, we shall need to extend public ownership and to plan our ports throughout the country. We shall continue our pressure for that throughout the years, and I hope that when we have another Labour Government, which I believe will be after the next General Election, we shall come up with a further Bill for the public ownership of the ports—and an even better one than we had before.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Bob Brown: I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) in congratulating the Minister on his appointment and in congratulating his Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine).
I also join in the tribute my right hon. Friend rightly paid to the Department that we have just had the misfortune of leaving, and particularly on the work it did in the preparation of the Ports Bill. I hope that it will not be too long before its staff are bending their backs to the preparation of another Ports Bill when we nationalise the ports.
The man who should have been standing at the Dispatch Box instead of me now is Albert Murray, who was the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the ports side of the Ministry of Transport whilst I was in charge of the other side of the Department. I am sorry that Albert is not here today. I pay tribute on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself—and, I am sure, of my hon. Friends—to the work Albert Murray did


in the Ministry of Transport and particularly in the Standing Committee considering the Ports Bill. He took a great deal of the brunt of the work in Committee. I am sure that everyone recognised Albert as a first-class Member and a first-class Parliamentary Secretary. We are all sorry that he got scant justice and very little reward from the Gravesend constituency, which he represented extremely well in the House. His successor has a tremendously high standard to live up to if he is to serve the people of Gravesend as did Albert Murray.
The only maiden speech today was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I understand that he is the first seaman representative of the National Union of Seamen in the House. We were all delighted with his clarity, and we all enjoyed the quality of his speech, which displayed his tremendous knowledge of the problems of those who go down to the sea in ships. His knowledge will be invaluable to the House. I am certain that we shall hear very much of my hon. Friend.
After hearing many worthies at the Dispatch Box in the past week or so giving the much-worn replies, "We are giving consideration to this matter …", "This and other issues are being looked at …", "I hope to make a statement next week ", "Sometime", "Possibly before the Recess …" and so on, I am grateful to have heard from the Minister a positive proposal. Although this is a minnow, or a tiddler, of a Bill, at least it is a positive step by the Government, and that is good to see. I am happy to help it on its way to the Statute Book.
I note how interested Government supporters have been today in the subject of the docks. They have been conspicuous by their absence. At the election, the Labour Party lost no fewer than nine port members, two from Bristol, two from Preston, from Southampton, Ipswich, Manchester and Tees-side. We lost John Ellis, who represented Bristol, North-West. I remember the absolute filth which the editor of the Western Press used to peddle about John Ellis. I wonder where John Ellis's successor is. We are entitled to ask where these

worthies are today, because, as this is the first debate on the subject of the ports in this Parliament, they should have been sufficiently interested to attend, but they have been conspicuous by their absence.

Mr. Martin McLaren: I am the successor of Mr. Ellis. I am back for Bristol, North-West. I think that this is a very good Bill, and I welcome it. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: It is not in order to clap in the Chamber.

Mr. Mikardo: I apologise, Mr. Speaker; I was absolutely carried away!

Mr. Brown: I am delighted to welcome the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren). It is interesting to note that he has found out where the Chamber is.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said is worth repetition. He said that no industry had been more investigated than the ports industry. Almost everyone, except the Conservative Party, agrees that the only solution to the problems of the industry is full public ownership.
Sir Arthur Kirby has been mentioned ad nauseam, but I do not apologise for referring to him again. At his Press conference, introducing the report of the National Ports Council, he spoke of labour problems and cargo handling problems, and said:
These problems are likely to persist for so long as there is fragmentation of employment and split control of labour in the port industry. The problems will be solved only by patience and by adopting means of bringing management and labour together in greater confidence. The docker himself, understandably, is very concerned about his future when he sees the new technologies of cargo handling bringing about a drastic reduction in the labour content. This is why we sound a warning with the danger of a critical collapse of confidence if this effect of new technology and procedures are not brought to a solution and adequate provision made for people's livelihoods, stature and security.
The nationalisation of the major ports was one possible road towards a solution of the problems, but it was certainly not the only one, and I am confident that if the ports authorities can become the major employers of labour and be masters of all operations within their own ports, this should open the way to a much better standard of industrial relations.


No clearer statement is needed to show that the future of the ports lies in a fully integrated system of public ownership.
I permit myself a luxury which for nearly three years I have been denied; I refer to my own constituency. As a Member representing a Tyneside constituency, I believe that there is a clear need for the Minister to get together with the Minister responsible for regional development—I am not sure whether he is a Privy Councillor—to discuss the development of the Port of Tyne. Development on the banks of the River Tyne is needed so that there are activity-producing industries to increase the prosperity of the North-East of England, which is one of the hardest pressed areas of the country.
I fully accept that the Tyne will never be a major international seaport, but it has an important part to play in the prosperity of the North-East. With all the wealth of knowledge of city and business matters which it constantly reminds the country it has, surely the Tory Party should have been able to say something of its intentions for the future of the ports, but the Minister has said nothing. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some of the Tory pearls of wisdom for the future. I promise him that when we return to the Government benches, as surely we shall, and, I hope, after the next General Election, we will take the necessary steps quickly to bring the ports into public ownership and thereby improve the prospects for our national trade.

6.38 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Michael Heseltine): This has been a wide-ranging debate, as was expected, on a narrow Bill. I should like to begin by expressing my personal thanks to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) for his kind words about me at the beginning of his speech. I much appreciated his generosity, as I always did when we worked together in another Parliament.
I am delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman where he is: we worked long to bring him to that position, and I hope that he will have the chance to spend a long time gaining stature and experi-

ence on those benches. He suggested that when we worked together on the Ports Bill I was guilty of wishing to instruct rather than to learn. In the circumstances, it seemed appropriate, just as it now seems appropriate to reverse the process and to learn more than one instructs.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to ask what criteria would be applied to individual schemes coming before the Minister for approval for loan or grant. He will remember that the decision is based on the widest national and economic considerations of the totality of a scheme, with the proviso that its financial return shall be sufficient to cover the loan charges.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked a long series of questions which were of major importance to those interested in the Scottish ports. He asked what was the draught of vessels using the Grangemouth and Leith ports. These ports have considerable potential, which we hope will be more widely used. The sill depth at Grangemouth will be 38½ feet, which will enable vessels to a draught of 32 feet to use the facilities, with a maximum of 37 feet at spring tides. In Leith there is a depth of 40 feet allowing a maximum loaded draught of 39 feet.
The right hon. Member then moved on to the question of the container port on the Clyde and raised the interesting possibilities, which have to be fully considered, of the new ideas of a land bridge and the implications following from that. We certainly will want to look at these ideas and form clear views about them.
When the right hon. Gentleman raised the question of the implications of the Common Market on the Scottish ports situation he was not fully taking into account the fact that any growth in demand which might have effects on the South-East of England does not necessarily mean that there will be a retraction of demand in the northern part of the United Kingdom. There could be such an overall increase in growth that there would be extra growth for everyone. It is much too early to predict now what the effect will be.
The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) went on to amplify the right hon. Gentleman's last point, dealing with


the Greenock container berth. This is an extension of the existing 850 ft. container terminal quay and is intended to provide an additional 336 ft. with facilities, and six acres of land for container stacking, which is needed to provide further for the estimated build-up of traffic by 1972 so that we can avoid the delays which would otherwise take place.
The hon. Member for Motherwell amplified this point and asked for information about the co-ordination of development in the railway system and freight liner terminal at Greenock. Our view is that this is a commercial arrangement in the first place between the Clyde Port Authority and the various local authorities and inland transport authorities in that area. It is for them to devise any scheme thought necessary or desirable. If, within the context of the powers available to my right hon. Friend, they wish to submit proposals to him for consideration and he is able to deal with the matter, it will be for him to decide whether they come within the general criteria he lays down from time to time.
The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) made a speech which I have always enjoyed on this subject. I have great sympathy with him that he should now be on that side of the House looking at the problems of the port industry in much the same way as he has done on so many occasions in the past. It was a little harsh for him to lecture my right hon. Friend about the urgency of the situation so soon after my right hon. Friend has taken up his new position. The hon. Member knows that it was his Government which introduced legislation in the ports five years after his proposals were adopted and then cancelled them in the middle of a General Election to conform with a parliamentary timetable which the Prime Minister of the time told us had been designed four years before. It is difficult for the hon. Member to come to this House and demand that within about 10 days of taking office my right hon. Friend should have solved all the problems of the ports which the previous Government ignored so conspicuously for six long years.
The industry will welcome the determination of the Minister to consult it and look at it calmly, consider the facts, weigh up the evidence, a great deal of which

has been produced this afternoon, and then make up his mind in the context of consultation and full reflection, without taking precipitate action.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) raise the question of the regrettable accident that happened to the lock gates at Newport. I know that he will be delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend has authorised the expenditure necessary for the repair of the gates. I hope that the minimum disruption of traffic will ensue in this most regrettable situation.
I was sorry to miss so much of the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), although I think he will forgive me if I say that I feel that there was a certain familiarity with the arguments. I appreciate that he feels strongly about this subject, and he has made this clear.
The speech about which I would like to say more came from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), in one of the most remarkable maiden speeches I have heard in the House. I congratulate him upon it. I was amused by the remark he made about there being no swing in his constituency against the then Government, saying that he liked to believe that this was a tribute to the personality and integrity of the candidate. I would go along with that view, because there can be no other explanation for the fact that there was no swing against the then Government.
I was slightly dismayed to hear some of the hon. Member's comments about the British Transport Docks Board ports in his constituency. It has always been my view that the British Transport Docks Board has been a rather well-managed nationalised industry, and I was sorry to hear that after six years of partnership with the Socialist Government there should be so many difficulties yet to be solved. Certainly we will look at the arguments put forward.
I want to say a word about the arguments put forward by the three hon. Members representing Kingston upon Hull. They raised a range of problems of real concern locally meriting the closest consideration. There are certain problems. First of all, they asked for general indications about the future of the fishing industry. I am sure that they


will appreciate that that is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Their views will be drawn to the attention of the Minister. It is not, specifically in terms of the fishing industry, within the power of my right hon. Friend to make grants for the improvement of fishing facilities.
Secondly, we are concerned with British Transport Docks Board ports, and, therefore, the loans granted come under the powers in the 1962 Transport Act and not the Bill that we are now considering. This is not to say that the general well-being of the Hull port is not something that comes within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, because it is. I ask hon. Members to believe that we are anxious to take their views wholly into account in all our considerations. I couple this general view and observation about Hull with a warm commendation to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East who made his maiden speech. I am pleased to have the opportunity of congratulating him from this bench, and I am sure that we shall hear from him on many occasions with equal enjoyment in the near future.
In opening the debate my right hon. Friend explained the purposes of the Bill. He said that he hoped hon. Members opposite would not expect him to enter into a wide-ranging debate on the industry and its problems, although he made it clear that he did not expect hon. Members opposite to contain themselves within the same discipline. He has listened to what has been said and will want to consider the many valuable points raised. I would not want to pretend that they were all totally consistent but they are part of the broad picture that he will be absorbing in the course of the ensuing months. Hon. Members opposite will not expect me to follow the generality of observations. My right hon. Friend will be considering the broader aspects of port policy.

Mr. McNamara: Can the hon. Member say whether his right hon. Friend will be producing a White Paper on the future of the ports soon?

Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend will want to make up his mind about what to put in another White Paper before deciding that a White Paper is necessary. We must allow him to con-

tinue his consultations and deliberations before committing himself to the form in which he expresses them or to the time when they are expressed.
I appreciate that hon. Members opposite will be mourning the loss of their Ports Bill for one reason or another, but we must get one thing clear and that is that there is now an end to the awful uncertainty which has been hanging over the industry for the last six years.

Mr. Mikardo: It has just started.

Mr. Heseltine: It was an intolerable situation, to say in 1965 that the ports were to be nationalised and to do nothing about it until 1969. This was to inject the most unforgiveable uncertainty into the industry. Now the port industry knows that the shadow of nationalisation has been lifted. I am only sorry on personal grounds that it should have cost hon. Members opposite the loss of nine of their colleagues' seats in our ports to show quite clearly what the electorate thought about the policy they advocated.
I do not pretend that the industry has no problems. We are all aware that it has very real problems. Any developing industry in an expanding economy is bound to have problems. Some will be day-to-day problems capable of being handled by the ports and the industry within the framework of Government help and encouragement, but other more serious problems may need legislation from time to time to deal with them. But we are absolutely certain that we should be very careful about introducing legislation which would have the effect of standing the industry on its head. The Government have not the slightest intention of finding instant problems to match preconceived instant solutions put forward by hon. Members opposite. If major changes are to be made in the ports, they will not be made until we have looked at the problems comprehensively.
Therefore, the sensible thing to do is to deal with the practical problems as they arise in a practical manner, and a practical approach is provided within the Harbours Act, 1964.

Mr. Mulley: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is not making a statement of policy today, but it would help not only the House but the industry if some idea


could be given when a definitive statement will be made. Not only will vague statements that this or that is being considered or studied cause many people anxiety and concern, but there is on record the manifesto on which the hon. Gentleman's party fought the election, and surely the people working in the industry are entitled to an explanation of what is meant by it. We have already had the statement that there is to be a strong central body. May we have some idea of what is meant by that or when we shall be told what is meant by it?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that those in the industry will greatly appreciate the desire to consult them and the wide-ranging discussions which we shall have with them and the measure of agreement which we shall be able to reach with them. I do not think that they want us to state an arbitrary date line for an arbitrary policy which we have not announced. The right hon. Gentleman must allow my right hon. Friend time to do the job as thoroughly as he is determined to do.
The main problem with which the Bill deals is not exactly of our making. On the other hand, we accept that the statutory limit laid down for port finances by way of loan or grant had to be reached at some stage or other. In view of the importance of port development, it is very desirable that we should have these powers to continue in the way explained by my right hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Eyre.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — HARBOURS (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to repeal section 13(1) of the Harbours Act 1964 and impose a limit on future loans under section 11 of that Act, it is expedient to authorise any such increase in the sums which under the Harbours Act, 1964, as amended by subsequent enactments,

are to be or may be issued out of the National Loans Fund, defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, or paid into the National Loans Fund, as results from any provision of the said Act of the present Session removing the limit imposed by the said section 13(1) on the aggregate amount of loans and grants made by the Minister of Transport under sections 11 and 12 of the Harbours Act, 1964, subject to the limitation that the aggregate amount of loans made after the passing of the said Act of the present Session by that Minister under the said section 11 shall not exceed £75 million or, if so provided by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament, £125 million.—[Mr. Peyton.]

Orders of the Day — FIJI INDEPENDENCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Queen's Consent signified.

6.55 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Joseph Godber): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill will make provision for Fiji to become an independent sovereign country. It marks a new and decisive stage in the relations of Fiji and the United Kingdom. But there was always something very special in that relationship. It was at the request of the Fijian leaders of that time that in 1874 the British Government of the day accepted the cession of Fiji to the British Crown. In the same way, in response to an approach from the Chiefs in the island, Rotuma was ceded to Britain and annexed to Fiji in 1881.
Since then great changes have taken place. Fiji has become a multi-racial country. Her forces have achieved valiant exploits in the Far East and Malaysia. Her medical school has become renowned in the Pacific. Her rugby teams have won friendship and admiration. Her economy has shown steady growth with a rapidly developing tourist industry earning valuable foreign exchange to buttress earnings from sugar and other local crops.
Racial co-operation in Fiji has become part of the normal way of life. But this mixed racial population presented difficult constitutional problems. The two main political parties each had their own ideas, for example, about the composition of the future legislature and about the electoral arrangements.
In the course of 1969, talks began between the two main parties to seek agreement on constitutional advance. Early this year Lord Shepherd, then Minister of State, visited Fiji, and his report is to be found at Annex A of the White Paper (Cmnd. 4389) which was published last week. It records that the two parties had agreed that Fiji should proceed to Dominion status; that is to say, that Fiji should become a fully sovereign and independent State with the Queen as Head of State and that Fiji should seek membership of the Commonwealth. They had also agreed that Fiji should proceed to independence after a constitutional conference and without an election before independence. And they had agreed that it should have a bicameral legislature with an Upper House to provide some degree of safeguard for traditional interests. But they had not yet resolved their differences over the future electoral system. Therefore, a constitutional conference was convened in London on 20th April this year and the successful outcome of that conference is recorded in the White Paper.
As recorded in paragraph 5 of the White Paper, a statement was made by the Chief Minister, on behalf of both Fiji parties, setting out the terms of an agreed compromise solution on the future electoral system. The most significant feature of the proposed new Constitution is that it is the work of the elected representatives of the people of Fiji themselves. The Deeds of Cession were the result of initiatives by the Chiefs of Fiji and of Rotuma. The Constitution of an independent Fiji is similarly the fruit of local initiatives.
Though I did not myself have the good fortune to take part in the constitutional conference, I hope that I may be permitted to pay tribute to the Fiji delegation and to their leaders, whose mutual co-operation, tolerance, good will and true sense of patriotism enabled the conference to reach a successful conclusion. I am also glad to record my thanks to my predecessor in office, Lord Shepherd, for his untiring work. This spirit augurs well for the future of Fiji.
Turning now to the provisions in the Bill, Clause 1 names the date on which Fiji is to become independent, 10th October, 1970, which will be the 96th

anniversary of the Deed of Cession by which Fiji originally became a British dependency. Clauses 2 and 3 make provisions on the usual lines regarding national status and citizenship. Here I would refer honourable Members to paragraphs 15 to 17 of the White Paper, which describe the citizenship provisions which are to be embodied in the Fiji Constitution. The result of these will be that the vast majority of the citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are living in Fiji will automatically become citizens of Fiji at independence.
With certain exceptions mentioned in Clause 3, all these categories will lose their United Kingdom citizenship when they become Fiji citizens. Thus, the only substantial group of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who will remain in Fiji after independence will be those having some special connection with this country or one of its remaining dependencies. Clause 4 of the Bill, together with the Second Schedule, serves to modify various Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament to take account of the granting of independence to Fiji. These are the main provisions of the Bill, which are very much in accord with other ordinances of this kind. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
I am sure that hon. Members from both sides of the House join me in expressing their good wishes to the people and Government of Fiji for a happy, prosperous and peaceful future. Britain's association with Fiji has been a fruitful one in which both countries can take pride. I am confident that our new relationship will strengthen friendship and co-operation between our two countries which we in Britain, just like the inhabitants of Fiji, so greatly value.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Foley: It falls to me to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on introducing the Bill and on the high office which he has achieved, and to pay tribute to my noble Friend, Lord Shepherd, for his valiant work at the constitutional talks that were held earlier this year.
The greatest congratulations, however, must be paid to the leadership and the people in Fiji itself. As the Minister has said, Fiji enjoys a harmony between its


various peoples of different ethnic stock. They live and work together in peace. This is not something which could be imposed from outside. This is the unique contribution of the people of Fiji which is their great investment in their own future.
Since Fiji ceded to Queen Victoria the local Fijian people have been joined by people from the subcontinent of India. They now live together in their islands in roughly equal numbers, as well as with people of other races. The way in which they have approached their difficult problem of reconciling race and culture, history, language, land tenure, and so on, is a reflection on both political parties.
I can do no more than reflect particularly the statement made by the Chief Minister at the constitutional conference earlier this year, when he said:
In a multiracial society, trust, understanding and tolerance are the cornerstones of peace and order. These qualities are nourished and developed by the traditions and culture of every race. Hence the provisions in the Constitution to safeguard the culture and interests of the various units which make up the multiracial society of Fiji.
The Leader of the Opposition echoed that in a very brief statement in saying:
We cannot afford to condemn or hate any race. We will have to live like brother and sister.
It is in that spirit of realism and idealism that Fiji approached the constitutional talks and reached agreement on the very difficult issues of the legislative assembly and its future constitution.
I have two sets of questions to put to the Minister. The Bill was prepared by the previous Administration and contains no provisions for defence. Our policy on withdrawal from the Far East was well known and understood by those who participated in the conference. It would seem that the present Government intend to evolve a new policy in this respect concerning the Far East. This is reflected in the Gracious Speech and in the words of the Prime Minister in the debate on the Address on 2nd July, when he said:
In South-East Asia, it is a British interest that we should work out with our Commonwealth allies in Malaysia and Singapore, in Australia and New Zealand, a way in which we can join effectively with them in helping to maintain stability in that area.

The Prime Minister continued:
It is also in the interest of many of their neighbours, about 200 million people in that area who share their need for security … we have reasonable time now to work out with our friends a new and up-to-date system of co-operation based on the realities of the situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 80.]
My first question, therefore, is whether it is the intention of the Government to involve Fiji in their discussions on defence in the Pacific. Will those discussions include matters relating to internal as well as external security? Will the Secretary of State for Defence, on his projected visit to the Far East, include Fiji in his schedule?
My second series of questions relates to the fact that Fiji has moved rapidly to independence and has omitted the stage of fully internal self-government and proceeded straight away to independence. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to Fiji's stability, its economic growth and development. In assuming the burden for their own affairs, the Fijians will retain links with us, but clearly, too, they will need help in aid and technical assistance. Will this be forthcoming? Is there any project, or are discussions expected with Fiji, on the level of aid and technical assistance? Will this reflect their new status? Will the present level of aid be maintained, or will it be increased? If such talks are to take place, when?
It seems to me that the new Constitution recognises the problems created by a multiracial society and the need to give a fair place and a fair voice in that society to all communities, whether Fijian, Indian or representatives of other races who are part of Fiji. We for our part accept the Bill. We wish the people and the Government of Fiji well for the future.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I have yet to meet anybody who has had the privilege of visiting Fiji who has not anxiously awaited the next opportunity to go back to that delightful country. I had the privilege of going there with a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation in 1962. Not only did I find a beautiful country, but the people I met then have been some of my closest friends from that time onwards. I have had the privilege at intervals of going


back to see them and they have the good habit of visiting this country, and so we see each other reasonably frequently. It is, therefore, with very real feeling that I express, on behalf of those who know the country, our very warm good wishes to Fiji on this occasion.
It was only this morning, when I was listening to the news, that I learnt that the Fijian team which has come to the Commonwealth Games has gone to the trouble of arranging its own finance to get there. They deserve great commenddation for the spirit which they have shown and their determination to play their part in the Commonwealth Games.
My right hon. Friend the Minister happened to mention that the Fijian footballers had been over here and had won many friends. To have seen a Fijian football team playing, sometimes without any covering on their feet, and the way they are able to control a football in those circumstances, is something which is always remembered.
When the Fijians were here last time, they had the opportunity to go to Wales, where not only did they have some very good football, but they also found people who were able to sing with the same quality as do the Fijians themselves. Great bonds of friendship were built at that time between the Welsh and the Fijians on the basis of their mutual interest in music.
Anyone who has heard the Fijians sing some of their own songs cannot fail to have been moved and would want to have another opportunity of going to listen to them. Their footballers are coming back again in the autumn and a good many of us are looking forward to the opportunity to welcome them here and see the excellent football which they will undoubtedly play.
Another link which many people in this country established with the Fijians was when the Fijian Military Forces came here to take part in the Royal Tournament. They wore sulus, which are not very different from kilts. They found that the Gurkhas dressed in a similar way and marched with similar precision, and they established great friendships when they were here.
I have had the privilege of taking the party that came to the Royal Tournament around this House on two separate occasions. I have never had a more interested

or intelligent band of visitors in the Palace of Westminster. Most of them had never been in an underground train before. They had all kinds of adventures. Some landed up in Wimbledon or Hampstead. However, in due course they turned up here cheerful and happy.
My right hon. Friend said that 10th October is the date on which independence is to be granted to Fiji. That is appropriately the 96th anniversary of the Deed of Cession. On 28th August 1874 King Cakobau and the Council of Chiefs said:
We give Fiji unreservedly to the Queen of Britain, that she may rule us justly and affectionately, and that we may live in peace and prosperity.
It started with a very happy relationship which has continued through the years.
On some occasions, after we have had Independence Bills before the House, hon. Members have in due course visited the countries concerned with a present from this House to wish the new independent members of the Commonwealth well in the new way in which they are organising their affairs. We will not need to send a Mace to Fiji. Some hon. Members will recall that the war club used by King Cakobau at the time of Cession was turned into a Mace, and it is still being used in the Fiji Legislature. It had a rather adventurous time. It was sent to this country to an exhibition at some stage and it then disappeared for many years. But an enterprising person decided to find out where it was. He wrote to The Times, and it turned up in the Library of Windsor Castle. It was returned to Fiji, and it is used there now.
The Mace used in Fiji being a war club brings me to the point mentioned by the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) concerning defence and about which I want to ask my right hon. Friend. Anyone who has seen the Fijians' war dances and war clubs could have no doubt whatever that they are quite capable of taking any necessary steps to defend themselves in ordinary circumstances. But in the modern world something rather more sophisticated than a war club is required. Is any thought being given to the help which we hope that we can give to the Fijians in dealing with the defence problems with which they will be left after the Bill has been


passed? I hope that it will be possible for the Government to be very generous in the aid that they can give to the Fijians so that they will be able to deal with this problem in the best possible way. There is no doubt that Fijians would put to good use whatever form of arms they were able to afford. Their record in the last war and the way that they fought with our troops gives us the greatest confidence in their ability. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will see that a generous arrangement is made with the Fijians in this respect.
I should like my right hon. Friend to be more specific about the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3. We have become accustomed to arrangements about British nationality and citizenship in the various Bills which have come before the House. But we also have some difficulties brought to our attention from time to time which arise from similar Bills which have been passed. I have read Clauses 2 and 3 with considerable care and I have also looked at paragraphs 15 to 17 of the White Paper. I have a certain amount of anxiety about what exactly the final result will be.
I note that the Leader of the Opposition, in one of his speeches to the constitutional conference, said:
… we yould not have to face problems of the Kenya Asians who held British passports and citizenship after Kenya became independent.
It may be that that type of difficulty has been well thought out and that it is covered by these two Clauses. However, I was not entirely persuaded by what my right hon. Friend said and I hope that he will be able to spell it out more clearly when he replies to the debate.
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development is present. On these occasions there is always something that ends up in his Ministry as a result of the actions which we take in passing such a Bill. My right hon. Friend will be aware that negotiations have been going on regarding the officers who will be entitled to compensation as a result of the passing of the Bill. I hope that he will carefully consider the representations that have been made.
From time to time I have put down a number of Questions about the compensation which has been granted to a number of the countries that have achieved independence from 1960 onwards. The maximum compensation in East Africa in 1960 and a year or two afterwards was fixed at £12,000. By any calculation today, a comparable figure would surely be in the region of £16,500 as a result of devaluation, inflation, and so on. The last arrangement was made with Swaziland. The maximum compensation given in Swaziland was £14,000. In Swaziland only 2 per cent. of the officers entitled were qualified for maximum compensation under the scheme. The maximum that I have been able to trace in other schemes is 10 per cent. The information that I have from Fiji is that 40 per cent. of the entitled officers will receive the maximum. It is, therefore, a matter of great importance to those serving in Fiji that this matter should be given the most careful attention by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development.
I have no doubt that there were conversations with the noble Lord when he was in Fiji. I hope that the impression which has got about in Fiji, that a scheme would be imposed upon the officers serving there and that their representations would be brushed to one side and overlooked, will be dispelled.
I return to the place from which I started when I said that it is with genuine feelings that I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members wish to express their good wishes to Fiji in the events which are now taking place. May I just refer to a short passage in the speech of the Chief Minister on 20th April at the opening of the conference, when he said:
Our links with the British Crown are strong and treasured, forged in war and in peace. And all of us in Fiji, of whatever race or age, can look back in gratitude for the wisdom of the Chiefs of Fiji who ceded our islands to Queen Victoria. And looking back over nearly one hundred years, I can say that their wisdom cannot be questioned, and their trust has not been misplaced.
The Leader of the Opposition set out a number of matters which he thought were of specific importance, and to which he wished to draw attention. Perhaps I may just deal with one of them, and that is the arrangement which has been


included in the Bill for an Upper House. He said:
… it has been agreed that Fiji's future legislature should have an Upper House, not necessarily to act a a House of Review like the House of Lords in England, but as a House of Protection for the autochthonous race … it is interesting to note that the Upper House will give the Fijian people an effective constitutional power to prevent, in a sophisticated way, any legislation being enacted against their wishes which affects their land, their customs, their culture and their way of life. It is pleasing to note that this aspect of the proposal for the establishment of the Upper House was proposed by my party and graciously accepted by the Fijian people through its leaders and Council of Chiefs.
I know that there is a unanimous warm feeling which the House wishes to have expressed on this occasion to the people of Fiji.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I join the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) in what he said about the people of Fiji. I, too, had the privilege of visiting Fiji and enjoying the hospitality of the people of those islands. I also join the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley), in paying tribute to the part played at the constitutional conference held in April of this year by my noble Friend the Lord Shepherd, who was then the Minister of State. It is due in no small measure to his visit to Fiji and to the encouragement and understanding that he showed in all the discussions that such a happy outcome was arrived at at the conference.
It is also necessary to pay tribute to the politicians in the Alliance Party of Fiji and in the National Federation Party of Fiji for the great statesmanship that they have shown and the great leadership which they have given in bringing their varying points of view together to enable an agreed constitutional formula to emerge which we all hope will enable Fiji to move forward and open a new page in its history.
There is something unique about the granting of independence to Fiji, because this is one of the rare occasions that I can recall when a British dependency is achieving independence not after a long terrible bloody history of tumult, disunity and revolutionary activity, but in the hopeful atmosphere of a united people,

with united political parties sharing the same aspirations. We hope that the Constitution will follow precisely the lines laid down in the Blue Book issued to the House, and that it will enshrine the dignity of man and the liberty of the people of Fiji.
In Fiji I visited towns, villages, factories and farms, and I was most struck by the kindness of all the races there and by the fortitude of the ordinary people who occupy their time in hard labour in the cane fields and in the other occupations that are open to them. It is a beautiful area, and the people are extremely hospitable to visitors, but I sometimes fear that when people visit a beautiful place such as that they are blind to the problems of those people. The people of Fiji are well aware that independence is no magic formula for solving the problems which confront them. It is, as they know, only the first vital step.
For the ordinary man and woman in Fiji, the person working in the factories, in the shops, in the cane fields and in the sugar mills, national sovereignty and political freedom will have no meaning at all unless it is the runner-up to greater social progress and racial harmony, which is so essential. It is not just a question of who governs them; whether it is self-government or British government. It is really more a matter of how they are governed, and what will be done to ensure that there is social progress for the ordinary people of Fiji.
We in Britain take pride in the part that we have played in the advancement to independence and freedom of so many countries in the world. We have a new rôle now. The old rôle of establishing order and good government in colonial territories has gone for ever. Our new rôle was touched on by the hon. Gentleman, that of giving financial aid and technical advice to developing countries such as this, and I join the hon. Gentleman in saying to the Minister of Overseas Development that we shall carefully watch the activities of the Government and expect them to be extremely generous to Fiji in the difficult years that lie ahead.
During the course of the constitutional conference many fine speeches were made by the delegates and by the leaders of the two parties. I was particularly struck by a passage in the speech of the hon.


S. M. Koya, the Leader of the National Federation Party. Dealing with his firm belief that we were now living in a one-world atmosphere where the problems of every country were the problems of the whole of mankind, he said:
This one world recognises a common responsibility for the common welfare, among as within nations.
This one world needs a common discipline to ensure advanced science and technology serve man and do not destroy him.
The Leader of the Fiji Opposition is absolutely on the ball, and it is, therefore, of great importance to this shortly to become independent territory that we embrace the concept expressed in those words and ensure that we play our part in seeing that the help and the finance are made available for the development of their economy, because we have a continuing responsibility. We have a responsibility to assist in the development of the Fijian economy, and the expansion of her trade and tourist industry. It is only on the basis of a sound and prosperous economy of Fiji. This industry employs harmony and provide the social progress which we wish for the people of those islands, and which they wish for themselves.
That brings me to my main point. The House will be aware of the vital rôle which the sugar industry plays in the economy of Fiji. The industry employs about 30 per cent. of the total working population, and it is on the stability and viability of this industry that the future of Fiji will depend for many years ahead. Such arrangements as the International Sugar Agreement and, in particular, the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement are absolutely vital to Fiji if she is to emerge as a prosperous independent nation in the years ahead.
This country is about to embark upon very deep and perhaps meaningful negotiations for entry into the European Common Market. It is vital that the British Government should ensure the continuity of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement for emergent countries. If the Ministers can spare time from their very private conversation, I hope that they will take note of the point being made about the importance of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. It is a vital necessity for Fiji. But it is important

not only for Fiji but for the United Kingdom. If the entry of Britain into the Common Market should result in a breakdown of the arrangements for the production and marketing of sugar as expressed in the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, it would be a disaster for British housewives as well as an absolute disaster for the producers and the ordinary people of Fiji.
Britain receives her sugar under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. It is a stable supply and we receive it at a fair price. In return, countries such as Fiji are able to sustain a stable economy, based on the sugar industry, and they receive a fair return. Failure by the Government to maintain this essential Commonwealth interest would not only be a blow to the British housewife but would undermine the whole effort of granting independence to Fiji.
I welcome the statements made by the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who are responsible for negotiations for our entry into Europe. As I understand their statements, they intend during the course of the E.E.C. negotiations to pay particular attention to the question of maintaining the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. The bond of friendship between Britain and Fiji—to which the hon. Member referred—is long and historic, and it has been a gallant one. As the Minister of State said, we are indebted to those from Fiji who served with us in two world wars. It is many years since the Deed of Cession. I am glad that 10th October will be the appointed day for independence for Fiji. I hope that the present happy relationship will continue between our two countries, and that the mutual benefit that both have received from that relationship will also continue.
At the opening of the conference the Chief Minister of Fiji—Ratu Mara—made a speech using words that seem to me to sum up the feelings of this House as we wish Fiji well in the course upon which it is about to embark. He said that success would be achieved if the Constitution enabled them
to create a Fiji where people of different races, opinions and culture can live and work together for the good of all; can differ without rancour, govern without violence, and accept responsibility as reasonable people intent on serving the best interests of all.


I am sure that it would be the feeling of this Parliament and of our people that it is in that spirit and hope that we wish well to the people of Fiji in the independence upon which they will shortly embark.

7.34 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: Last October I had the fascinating experience of visiting Fiji as a member of a parliamentary delegation. I want briefly to pay tribute to Mr. Harold Davies, who led us on that delegation, for the manner in which he performed this duty, which led to a happy delegation, and, I hope, to many full and fruitful discussions with the Fijian people while we were there.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) referred to the rapid move to independence in Fiji. It has been very rapid indeed. Perhaps this striving for independence has been inevitable, but the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) rightly pointed out that it has not come as a result of a bloody struggle against rulers from this country, as has been the case with other countries in the past, or from agitation of one sort or another. My experience there has led me to the conclusion that independence has come not as a result of pressure from the ordinary citizen. Pressure has not come from below. However, the die is now cast, and the wisdom of taking the decision will no doubt be judged in the future.
The Bill seems to be a standard reproduction of similar Bills in the past—a dry-as-dust, legal document. I could wish that there was a little more panache about it, signifying more graphically the changes that have taken place and what they mean for the men and women of Fiji, because the changes will be very great. There might even have been a recognition, somewhere, of the loyal support in war and peace that has been given to this country by the people of Fiji.
I want to raise one or two points about the Bill. The Minister mentioned the question of citizenship. Reading the Bill and other documents it seems to me that many people might be involved in claiming British citizenship. I shall not go into all the details, but do we really mean that all these people may become British citizens? If so, can the Minister give

some estimate of what the numbers might be? We ought to know whether many thousands or many tens of thousands will be allowed into this country in the event of trouble. We do not want to repeat the experience of having to go back on our word as we did in respect of East Africa. There may be trouble in the future, and I should like to know whether, if there is, this country can take the numbers involved. It seems unlikely that we should have to do this, but it seemed unlikely many years ago in the case of East Africa. It may happen with Fiji, because it happened with East Africa, and we should know what numbers are involved. If they are very great, might it not be wiser to make the position of this country clear and not hold out promises that may prove to be false?
My second point concerns Clause 5. It provides that "Fiji" means
the territories which immediately before the appointed day constitute the Colony of Fiji.
We are accustomed to look at the map and see two or three major islands but as now constituted Fiji consists of hundreds of islands, covering a large expanse of ocean. Unless this is made crystal clear and recognised internationally seeds of trouble could be sown for the future. May I support what the hon. Member for West Bromwich said about defence? The Fijians have great military traditions. They fought gallantly alongside us. Their islands are strategically placed, with many fine harbours, and it would be of mutual value if we could retain some association.
The decision has been taken to grant independence. I pay tribute to the loyalty and the service which all Fijians have given to this country. They are charming and friendly people. I hope that our association in future will be as friendly and as fruitful as it has been in the past. They will need help, as the hon. Member said. No former colony could be more worthy of it than Fiji.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. William Rodgers: May I add my word of welcome to the Bill and declare my membership of the club of those, who having visited Fiji, enjoyed the occasion very much? I was there within the last 12 months, and particularly enjoyed the kindly


hospitality of Mr. Charles Stimson, the Minister responsible for communciations, works and tourism, who was a member of the constitutional conference. They are idyllic islands for visitors. Although I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) said about the importance of sugar, we must all accept that tourism will be a growing factor in the economy of Fiji as the years go by.
As an incurable romantic, I hope that the development of tourism will not entirely destroy some of the primitive qualities which are still available to visitors to the island. I should still like to believe that it was possible to combine the romantic world of Sir Arthur Grimble with the necessary developments to give a decent standard of living to people in the twentieth century. This is not the case yet in the South Pacific, but there are still places where it is a pleasure to go, and where it is possible to get away from some of the worst and most soured characteristics of civilisation.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) mentioned racial harmony, and we all hope that it will persist, although we do not imagine that it will without a great deal of effort on the part of the communities in the islands to make the Constitution work and make a reality of the freedom which Fiji will enjoy under the Constitution. It is a good beginning, and I hope that it will continue in the same way.
I should like the Minister of State to explain how our present relations with Fiji with regard to aviation are affected by the Bill. There is a reference in Schedule 2(9) to the Civil Aviation Licensing Act, 1960, but I do not think that this tells the whole story, even if I fully understood what that paragraph means. I hope that the independence of Fiji will not diminish in any way the United Kingdom's interest in aviation in that part of the world or the contribution which we have been willing to make in the past to the growth of aviation in the South Pacific.
Under this heading there are three specific points. The first is the future of Nandi Airport, to which the United Kingdom Government, together with Australia and New Zealand, have mad a substantial contribution, towards both

operating and capital costs over the years. Particularly, I wonder whether the United Kingdom still intends to make a substantial contribution to the capital expenditure involved in equipping Nandi Airport to deal with the new generation of jumbo jets. The second point relates to the negotiation of traffic rights in Fiji. This may be what Schedule 2(9) is concerned with. Who will in future negotiate traffic rights at Nandi?
Third, I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could say that B.O.A.C., with the full support of the Government, will maintain its interest in Fiji Airways. At present, I believe, B.O.A.C., Qantas Air, the New Zealand Government and the Fiji Government each have roughly a 25 per cent. interest in Fiji Airways. Is it the Government's view that this percentage should be maintained and that we should share fully in the planning of Fiji Airways and its future rôle in the area? In other words, will the Bill and the independence of Fiji in any way affect, in the short run and in the longer run, the present aviation status quo in the area?
There is a mutual interest between Fiji and the United Kingdom in maintaining this status quo, give or take a little, For Fiji, there is the importance of Nandi for tourism, which will be of increasing importance as the years go by. In addition, it is a very important crossroads in the South Pacific, and even if the revenues from landing rights are relatively small, there is no reason to believe that in future they may not be considerably greater. The fact that the improvements are to take place at Nandi shows how far the new generation of jumbo jets still need a stopping place on the route across the Pacific, particularly bound for Australia.
The third consideration for Fiji is that they cannot possibly bear the whole cost or even the very much larger part of capital and operating costs at Nandi, so they have an interest in that respect in mutual co-operation.
I hope very much that Her Majesty's Government will not enter upon useless and expensive further commitments east of Suez, but, on the other hand, will not, in a niggling way, seek to make the economies which they will require to compensate for such excesses as they may


be foolish enough to embark upon by cutting services which we provide today which are of mutual advantage to ourselves and other countries. I have in mind here the need for developments in the South Pacific on the aviation side which will be valuable to Fiji Airways, to Fiji itself and also to this country, in so far as we wish to maintain our interest in that part of the world.
I have always thought that, as our military commitments diminish, so our commercial interests, our aid and information services should expand, so that we can make a continuing contribution out of our experience to the stability of an area with all the mutual advantages which this will bring. I should have thought that maintaining our present association with Fiji by providing facilities at Nandi Airport and in Fiji Airways was fully worth while.
I do not know whether the Minister would be prepared to say tonight, but I ask him to confirm the desirabilily of pursuing such studies as may be required in the South Pacific so that its full economic potential is seen from Fiji and they all contribute in the best way, at what I believe will be relatively small cost, towards the developments which will take place. Some of these will be the responsibility of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development. That right hon. Gentleman will have to consider what aid should be given either by the United Kingdom or by our Com-wealth friends to the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, to Tonga, to the New Hebrides and the Solomons, to mention only a number of the territories round about which are served by Fiji Airways and have a real part to play in the development of the economy and aviation in co-operation in the South Pacific.
We celebrate the end of one chapter and the beginning of another. I only ask that, in this new chapter, in certain aspects like aviation, where there has been a robust co-operation, this should continue.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison: I hope that the Hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the romanticisms of Sir Arthur Grimble, except to mention that having spent some

time exploring the islands to see if what Sir Arthur has described in fact exists, I have reached the conclusion that he was a charming man and a very good journalist.
Few hon. Members would have thought, say, four years ago that we would now be welcoming self-government and independence for Fiji, particularly in such a happy situation as exists today. There had been evidence of some unfortunate racial strife building up, but due largely to the statesmanship of Ratu K. K. T. Mara and S. M. Koya, in the last year or eighteen months progress has been made to such an extent that we are now able to welcome the emergence of a territory which has every reason to believe that it can be viable and have a happy and prosperous future.
I wish early in my remarks to pay tribute to a Minister who went to Fiji on behalf of the Labour Government. I refer to Mrs. Eirene White, who, as a Minister, did an extremely successful job in getting the confidence of many people and starting a lot of thinking along the road to self-government in areas and communities where many people were determined not to think in such terms. I pay tribute to her for the magnificent job which she did.
There are a number of races in Fiji, some of whom have not lost their identities, and in many respects I hope that they will retain them. Equally, I hope that a new name will soon be thought up—many people are trying to think of a suitable name now—for those who have been born in Fiji, whether they come from the early invasions of the Polynesians, Melanesians or Micronesians or the later invasions of the European, Indians and Chinese. I say this because those who have been born in Fiji must learn to live and work together, and the sooner they have an accepted unity of nationality the better. In this connection, I would like to see an end to the Fiji Affairs Board. I have no doubt that this matter will be worked out by the various races after independence.
The subject of the future pattern of political life in the Pacific has given rise to much thought and anxiety in that part of the world. I can envisage emerging two centres of learning, one at the University of Papua in New Guinea and the


other at the university in Fiji. I hope that once Fiji attains independence we shall not forget the Fiji University. Indeed, we should do everything possible to encourage it to develop.
The University of Fiji is an extremely poor relative of other universities, particularly when one thinks of the amount of money that has been pumped into the university at Port Moresby. This university is in great danger of becoming a second-class organisation. Just because there is harmony in Fiji, a part of the world which does not hit the headlines and which is virtually exactly the other side of the world, we must not forget the need for opportunities that exist at this university.
Although a federation with the Gilbert and Ellice Islands and with the Solomons and the New Hebrides may not be possible, any more than from the north it will be possible for the other islands, from the Solomons, to merge with Papua and New Guinea, there is a possibility that we may get what might be called a "talking area" in this part of the world from which a stronger identity of involvement might be built up.
I hope that Australia and New Zealand will continue to look benevolently, particularly from the financial point of view, at the development of Fiji. The New Zealanders have provided some teachers and school places to enable a few Fijians to go to New Zealand. Many New Zealanders have gone to work in the island. Australia has provided much of the money and banking facilities as well as a certain number of people, but not many.
It is essential that Australia expands its aid in the Pacific through A.S.T.A.P. and makes available loans to Fiji to enable certain tasks to be undertaken. A limited amount is being done but more must be done. I hope that relations between Australia and Fiji and New Zealand and Fiji will continue friendly and helpful, not only for the development of Fiji but because of the unity of interests that they have.
I regret that the Denning Report made it impossible for Pacific Sugar Mills to continue beyond 1972 in Fiji. However, while this organisation is withdrawing, it is doing so in the most helpful way and has offered technical and supervisory

assistance in the form of managerial and marketing assistance over any transitional period. I also welcome the fact that the Ministry of Overseas Development has been able to secure the services of Sir Ronald Leach of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Partners to advise the Fiji Government on the future of this industry, which is of vital importance to the island.
Tourism is, of course, of vital importance, and I share with the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees, if not a love of Grimble, then a desire that a number of the dude islands should be preserved so that future generations will be able to see them. I have in mind one dude island on which I shall be staying for a while during the Summer Recess and where I shall be doing a bit of reef diving and deep-sea fishing.
I hope that the strong sentimental and practical bonds that exist between Fiji and this country will be maintained and that Fiji will itself be able, through its university, to be a leader in the Pacific area, both to the North and to the North-West, and that further links will be forged between Australia and Fiji and New Zealand and Fiji, as well as between all those Pacific islands where, happily, the thought of fighting a war is today only a memory from the past.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I welcome the Bill, and I thank the Minister of State for the manner in which he introduced its provisions. I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new Ministerial appointment. His translation from agriculture to foreign and commonwealth affairs will be a very severe loss to his party's agricultural forces. Nevertheless, we can hope that he will tutor his new departmental colleagues in the importance of agriculture, and especially in the importance of the international problems which affect the future of that great industry.
As the Minister of State appreciates, the Bill is founded on the work of his predecessors, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) has played a distinguished part in the winning of independence by colonial countries. I know that it is a proud occasion for my hon. Friend, because no one


here has made a bigger contribution than he to liberating colonial peoples.
Everyone who has been to their islands knows that the Fijians are a remarkably friendly and industrious people. He has not been to Fiji who would not pay tribute to the warm hospitality of the people of every race there. This is a momentous occasion for them. There are men there who have achieved what only a very few years ago seemed an impossible dream. It looked then as though tension could destroy the bright prospects of sovereign independence based on racial harmony. I pay tribute to the leaders of all parties in Fiji who have contributed, with my hon. Friend, to the making of the present Measure.
Sovereign independence is one thing, but it can become meaningless unless economic survival is assured. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) referred in particular to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I am sure that hon. Members who know Fiji will agree that that agreement is at present central to the economy of the islands. Fiji is very heavily dependent on her sugar and other exports to the United Kingdom, and the continuance of the agreement is of vital importance to her people. Nothing will contribute more to Fiji's political and economic stability than a definite assurance that we shall not in any way damage the agreement.
It is here, I suggest, that the right hon. Gentleman's previous expertise should inform his new responsibilities. I hope he will very strongly emphasise that there can be no phasing out of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. If in negotiations with the Common Market countries we were to weaken, or phase out that agreement, we would be doing a major disservice to the people to whom we are now granting independence. There are people in agriculture, as there are people working in other industries, who see that their future is bound up with the continuance of the agreement. There are those who say, as my hon. Friend will appreciate from his deeply honourable record in working for the freedom of colonial peoples, that freedom comes before bread; that it is more important that Fiji and other dependencies should be independent than that

we should guarantee their economic future. But there is no reason why they should not have both freedom and bread, both sovereign independence and economic prosperity.
The present danger is that there are so many developed, prosperous countries which are now themselves producing what is one of Fiji's most important crops. I have been looking at the F.A.O. Provisional Indicative World Plan for Agricultural Development. In its treatment of the importance of sugar production to the poor and developing countries, it states that in many developed countries
… the level of protection is such as to permit the export of sugar at prices substantially lower than in domestic markets, exports being subsidised either indirectly by domestic sugar consumers or by other sectors of the economy through explicit export subsidies.
The right hon. Gentleman appreciates that the price for beet sugar in much of Western Europe and, in particular, in the countries of the European Economic Community is unreasonably high. He appreciates that the price of beet sugar in the Community is a threat to the poorer countries producing cane sugar and, in particular, to countries like Fiji and Mauritius. The F.A.O. report goes on:
It would be difficult to transfer a part of the resources currently being used for sugar production in many tropical countries to other uses without causing a serious fall in income whereas, at least in the longer run, the greater diversity of potential resource use in temperate, high-income countries would allow this to be done.
Thus the F.A.O. emphasises that it is much easier for developed countries in Western Europe to diversify their economies than it is for poorer countries like Fiji to carry through the diversification which many people advise.
I appreciate that on both sides it is recognised that the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is a matter of fundamental importance in negotiations with the Common Market countries. I hope that from this debate the cane growers of Fiji, with many of whom I have personal contact, will appreciate that there are those of us on both sides who will campaign, and campaign again, for the continuance, and indeed the strengthening, of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
In congratulating the people of Fiji on achieving their independence, I say


to them that they have loyal friends on both sides of the House who are deter- mined that Fiji's economic future shall be assured. It may be, as one of my right hon. Friends said in a debate here in 1967, that the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement could be a breaking point in negotiations with the Common Market. If that happens, so be it. We shall have broken on a matter of honour, for the C.S.A. is a matter of honour between Britain and our poorer friends in the Commonwealth. If the Common Market countries are not prepared to accept the importance of instruments like the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, there can be no question of our wishing to join them at the cost of causing damage to the economies of countries such as Fiji.
This is a very happy day for people throughout Fiji. As has been acknowledged in this debate, they fought alongside the people of this country and they have always cherished their link with this country. They are honoured by everyone here who knows them and their islands. I wish them well. I hope that not only will sovereign independence be assured but also that their economic future will be vouchsafed.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: I wish first to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the first Independence Bill he has introduced in his present office. I join with everyone who has spoken in wishing well to the new independent country of Fiji and in sending the best wishes of this House.
I listened with care to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). I quarrel with hardly anything in his speech, but I wish to amend something he said when paying tribute to his hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley), to whom I also pay tribute. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe said that his hon. Friend had given freedom to more colonial countries than anyone else. I cannot let that go by in spite of my deep regard for him, because it is known that independence was given to more Commonwealth countries during the 13 years of Conservative Government up to 1964.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I did not say that my hon. Friend had liberated more colonial dependencies than any Minister or ex-Minister, but I recalled that he played a very distinguished part, as I know from my association with him, in movements which had the purpose in the late 1940s and early 1950s of giving freedom to colonial countries.

Mr. King: I join in the personal tribute, but I do not think the hon. Member for Wythenshawe phrased it in the way I would have chosen.
However, that is not the point I wish to make; it is rather a point not of criticism but of interrogation. I find it hard to interpret Clause 2(2)
Except as provided by section 3 of this Act, any person who immediately before the appointed day is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall on that day cease to be such a citizen if he becomes on that day a citizen of Fiji.
That by itself is reasonably clear until we come to Clause 3. There is a reference to those who will not cease to be citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies, from which I deduce that there will be at least two classes of person, those who remain citizens of Fiji and those who remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. When the Minister winds up the debate I hope he will clarify who are which and in what circumstances.
I think all of us feel that this phrase,
citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies
is not a fortunate phrase. It has already given rise to a great deal of trouble and misunderstanding, and I cannot see why we should perpetuate it. It seems illogical if we say in Clause 1 that the United Kingdom no longer has any responsibility for the government of Fiji while at the same time we are to create citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies based on residence in Fiji, which at least raises a question of what is meant. I fear the precedent of the damage already done in Africa and elsewhere by the creation of such a type of citizen. If the Minister, when he winds up, can ease my mind on these matters I shall be grateful.
I join with other hon. Members in wishing this ex-colony every prosperity.

8.15 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Unlike many hon. Members who


have taken part in this debate, I have never visited Fiji, except for a landing, fuelling and taking off again in pitch darkness, if that counts as a visit. So I have no qualification to speak about the constitutional arrangements in this Bill.
But the importance of Fiji, underlined for me even by that very short visit, lies in its position, forming one of the main crossroads of the air routes of the Pacific. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware how when one is flying hour after hour over wastes of apparently limitless ocean it is a comfort, as well as something of a navigational miracle, to find a small island conveniently located with an airfield. Navigators of small ships have not always found it easy to locate little islands. I remember finding even Malta difficult to locate. As I was flying the White Ensign I signalled the captain of a merchant ship in convoy "Report your destination". He replied "Malta". So after a decent interval I turned round and followed the convoy!
The geographical position of Fiji enables me to make the wider point about the importance of adequate protection and surveillance of the trade routes used by British shipping and British aircraft world wide. The late Government, I am sorry to say, were very much lacking in understanding at this basic fundamental point. For the first two or three years after 1964 their Front Bench struggled manfully to maintain a presence east of Suez. HANSARD is full of stirring speeches by the former Secretary of State, for example, about the importance of peace-keeping and how small British forces can stop a minor incident turning into a major one, and so forth.
But then, as we know, after 1967 all this was cast aside and we were told that only in the N.A.T.O. area was there any threat. One of the difficulties facing small and newly independent countries such as Fiji is how to achieve any valid defence posture in a world which—however remote the threat—has clearly by no means abandoned force as a way of settling disputes. Even more applicable to Fiji, it is a world in which one of the Great Powers has 400 U-boats and many other ships ranging all over the oceans, not necessarily to fight wars, but certainly available as a ready means of landing

agents to pursue the objectives of an ideological struggle.
One of the lessons of the present decade is how a very small minority of trouble makers trained, supplied or financed from outside can make trouble especially where different races are working together in harmony to try to achieve unity, as I understand is the situation in Fiji. I emphasise that I am speaking not about Fiji fighting a war, but of Fiji or any other country needing the facilities for surveillance of its own coastline and the waters surrounding it.
I stress the need for some sort of defence agreement to be made simultaneously with or immediately after Fiji's independence. This will be needed by Fiji for the very limited objectives I have mentioned; and by the United Kingdom because of Fiji's geographical importance on the trans-Pacific route to Australia and New Zealand, which may—we never know when—be of the greatest possible significance to us. This is another opportunity for taking the joint action with other Commonwealth countries which has been suggested in the east of Suez-Far East situation.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is recognised in the House as being a leading exponent of his party's defence policy. Will he go a little further in respect of the defence of Fiji by indicating what he thinks would be a minimum requirement there both from a coastal defence and from an internal security point of view?

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: It is entirely a matter for the Fiji Government, newly independent, to make representations to the United Kingdom Government. The only point I am making is that I hope that the United Kingdom Government would look favourably on any request which might be made for the requirements as the Fiji Government see them.
I agree with what right hon. and hon. Members have said about the importance of overseas economic aid. The basic statistics of Fiji are that she not unnaturally imports much more than she exports. In cases such as this we have a continuing moral obligation from the past to be as helpful as we possibly can from


the economic aid point of view to newly independent countres.
I join in sending very warm greetings and a message of good will from the House to Fiji as she achieves independence in a very wicked world.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: I, too, support the Bill and wish Fiji well as she achieves independence. My only purpose in rising is to underline once more the importance of the sugar industry to Fiji, as it is an important industry to many other parts of the Commonwealth.
I underline also the enormous value of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. Fiji's sugar industry has been passing through a difficult time. The situation may well be aggravated in the future as a result of some commercial decisions. Notwithstanding that, I believe that sugar will remain an important industry in Fiji for a long time to come.
My right hon. Friend and neighbour, the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), is more than familiar with the problems of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. He has expressed his ideas on the subject on numerous occasions. I am glad that he is now in a position to wield some influence in the matter now as regards Fiji.
If Fiji's sugar industry is to contract, we can only hope that other industries will emerge. We have heard much of Fiji's tourist potential. I understand that there is also some mineral potential. It is to be hoped that the explorations now taking place will prove successful. It is certain that there will be a need for other industries to emerge and to flourish in Fiji if the sugar industry plays a lesser part in its economy. So long as it plays a part in its economy, I urge my right hon. Friend to bear in mind, as I know that he will, the enormous value of the Agreement, not only to Fiji, but to other parts of the Commonwealth.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Godber: With the permission of the House, I will respond to some of the points which have been made. I want straightaway to pick up the thread which has run right through the debate in the speeches which have been made from

both sides; namely, the tremendous friendliness and good will which has been shown towards the people of Fiji. I hope this message will go out to the people of Fiji tonight as the feeling of the whole House towards Fiji as she takes this step to independence.
I will deal with as many as I can of the individual issues which have been raised. I join in the expressions of gratitude to the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) for what he did in this field during the time that he was at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Gentleman spoke on this subject with a great deal of knowledge and sympathy.
The hon. Gentleman raised two specific points. He asked, first, whether we would be involved with Fiji in defence talks, a point which was taken up by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) managed to bring into that point a reference to our policy east of Suez, which I recognise must have some bearing on this. We shall be very happy to debate our policy east of Suez with the hon. Gentleman in great detail as we come to elaborate that policy, but I do not think that it fits very well into this debate.
I am thinking of this in the wider context. The normal position of countries within the Commonwealth reaching their independence will be maintained in the case of Fiji, and after independence the United Kingdom will have no formal residual responsibility for defence or external affairs. This is merely a repetition of the position in regard to other countries as they reach independence.
The Chief Minister of Fiji and the Leader of the Opposition understand and accept that Britain will not retain any precise defence commitments for an independent Fiji. This does not for one moment preclude a continuation of the existing informal arrangements for military training and for collaboration in any other suitable ways.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison) rightly referred to the interests of Australia and New Zealand in this regard; they play an importants part in relation to the future of countries in that area, and I believe that already New Zealand has certain arrangements with Fiji. We shall always be happy to talk with the Fijians about


any particular problems, and we recognise their need for consultation from time to time on defence matters. At the moment, there is no foreseeable external threat to Fiji, and long may that situation continue.
The second specific question raised by the hon. Member for West Bromwich referred to the future of aid. The Government of which he was a Member had certain specific aid arrangements in relation to Fiji, and arising from them there is still the proposal put forward by the then British Government in April for capital assistance in the form of the unexpended balance of the Colonial Development and Welfare schemes approved at the end of March this year, estimated at £2·4 million. There is also the unexpended balance of the Colonial Development and Welfare higher education allocation for the University of the South Pacific, estimated at about £1 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon referred to that university, and there is that definite commitment.

Mr. Brian Harrison: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this assistance to the university is about one-third—or even less—of what is going to the University of Papua and New Guinea?

Mr. Godber: I was not aware of that precise comparison. I apologise for not having all these figures in my head, but I am merely stating the position as it is now. It will always be open for consideration, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development is glad to look at particular points of that nature.
I was about to add that there is also the £1,354,000 for development schemes to be approved in the financial year 1970–71, and there is a sum estimated at £245,000 for commutation and compensation payments falling due before 1st April next. That is the present position as regards grants.
As regards loans, after we have had discussions with the Government of Fiji on their 1970–74 development plan, the Government will be ready to offer further support for the plan on loan terms, and when doing so we shall recognise the specific position of the University of the South Pacific and the development of the British dependencies in the region. In addition, there will be the question of technical assistance to be made available

on the same basis and at much the same level as hitherto. We shall welcome discussions with the Fiji Government on all aspects of aid, being anxious to give such help and assistance as we can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) made some interesting comments about Fiji and told us of the mace. We have no intention of depriving Fiji of its mace. I was not aware of its unique significance. I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend was suggesting that we should adopt a similar sort of mace in this House—a suggestion which I should choose to resist, I think—but he gave us an interesting piece of history in that connection.
The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) spoke of sugar as being at the centre of the Fiji economy, as did several other hon. Members. It is absolutely right to stress the great importance of sugar to Fiji, and hon. Members were right also to remind the House of the problems in this respect. Obviously, with discussions going on in relation to our possible membership of the E.E.C., we must all bear closely in mind the future of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and all it means to a number of territories such as Fiji and Mauritius, and others in the Caribbean, where it represents a notable part of the contribution which Britain makes to the economies of some of these countries, a contribution for which, incidentally, Britain is not always given full credit, particularly when international comparisons are made, and one hears of the requirement for certain countries to provide more from the economies to help the under-developed world. This is one form of very material help which Britain provides and to which it is as well to call attention.
Obviously, the future of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement must depend on the outcome of negotiations, but I am sure that my right hon. Friends most closely concerned with it will have much in mind the points raised in the debate. In any case, the agreement goes forward in its present form till 1974, and there is ample opportunity for discussion and consideration. This House, I know, will carefully watch the aspects of the matter which have rightly been stressed tonight. We recognise the continuing need of the people of Fiji for help in this regard, and


this need will certainly be to the fore in our thoughts and consultations on the matter.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) referred to the problem of Clause 3, on United Kingdom citizenship, and those who are affected. A number of other hon. Members mentioned this, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King), who asked a specific question about numbers. We are following the practice of recent independence arrangements. Clause 2 covers the great majority of citizens. A relatively small number of citizens come within the definition of Clause 3. The best estimate I have been given of the number of people involved—and it must be a very rough estimate—is that the number of persons possibly affected by Clause 3 would not be more than a few hundred. This is nothing like the problem which has been mentioned concerning parts of Africa. But we must make provision for people who have a special connection with the United Kingdom, and we are following very closely the pattern developed over the past few years. I do not see that any particular problems are likely to arise.
My hon. and gallant Friend also spoke of the reference in Clause 5 to "Fiji". Although we all recognise that a large number of islands come within this generic term, I understand that that is the normal way of referring to the Fiji islands. There is no difficulty about this.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees raised one or two specific points about aviation. Fiji will be in a position to negotiate on the points he raised in its own right after independence. Matters concerning civil aviation in the South Pacific will have to be discussed with our partners there, including Fiji. I can assure the House that we expect to continue our help to Nandi Airport with any requirements that are evident there. It must be a matter for discussion, and Fiji as an independent sovereign State will play her full part in discussions. We recognise the need for the maintenance and improvement of Nandi Airport, and shall certainly play our part.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), after

some kind references which I appreciate, also talked about the importance of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I do not think that I can add very much to what I have already said, except to repeat that we recognise that the future health of the economy of Fiji is closely bound up in the matter, and we shall keep this very much in mind.
I very much appreciate the close attention which hon. Members have paid, and have shown in the debate, to the continuing health of the economy of Fiji and the wellbeing of her people. It is with this encouragement and support, as Fiji enters upon her new independent existence, that I should like to send a warm message from the House. We have a strong feeling for Fiji, and shall look with interest and continuing sympathy to her proper requirements, and shall continue to help her in any way we can.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Clegg.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CASTLE SCHOOL, SHEFFIELD

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clegg.]

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: Having sat under your wise guidance for many hours in Standing Committee, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I express my pleasure and my congratulations to you on your being elevated to the Chair of the House? Secondly, may I express gratitude to the Under-Secretary for coming here tonight? I apologise for causing him to be on parliamentary duty for two late evenings in succession—I noted that he was on duty at an even later hour last night.
In a sense, the subject of the Adjournment is somewhat unusual, because I am not pressing the Under-Secretary to announce a decision tonight. I should be delighted if that were possible, but I gather that there are some statutory procedures still to be followed. It may be


unusual, but I think it to be right to present the case to a Minister before a decision is taken rather than to complain after the event if the decision is unfavourable, although by raising the matter tonight I do not preclude myself from raising it again if the circumstances warrant.
This is a local issue. It is a proposal to build a new school, provisionally designated the Castle School because it is thought to occupy the site of the ancient Manor Castle in my constituency. I should have thought that this was properly a matter for local decision and I bring it to the Floor of the House of Commons because, under the Section 13 procedure, whereby objections may be made to such proposals, it has been brought to the Minister's attention and, I understand, in a way which invites the Minister to intervene in the whole gamut of considerations—and I accept that in this proposal, as there must always be with the siting of a school, there are pros and cons where priorities are involved.
As I am informed, there are no local objections. None of the people living in the area has objected and nor have any of the parents of children who would be likely to go to the school. This will be an early test case of the doctrine which the new Secretary of State has annunciated in Circular 10/70 issued on 30th June concerning the organisation of secondary education.
Although I am sure that the Minister is fully aware of the background, perhaps I should briefly explain to the House the circumstances of the proposal. The need for a new school in the area arises from the reorganisation of secondary education in Sheffield which took place on comprehensive lines last year. Although locally this is a matter of controversy, as it is in the national context, I believe that it is right, particularly when it is so decided by the people in the area concerned, for secondary education to be organised on comprehensive lines.
This meant the closing of Wybourn Secondary Modern School in my constituency because the premises were wholly required then for the junior and middle school and there was no room for the secondary pupils. It would have been impossible in the premises as they are to give them the kind of secondary

education that everyone wanted them to have.
There was strong local opposition to the closing of the school. I should explain that it is in the centre of the oldest council estate in Sheffield, one classified as an educational priority area in a recent report and singled out in Sheffield as the area of greatest need on social and economic grounds. The area of the new school would involve not only this estate, but a 1950 estate called Manor Park and the more recent Hyde Park flat development so that one would get a balanced intake into the school.
I stress the need for the environmental consideration. A secondary school gives a community a focus which is otherwise lacking. Many say that because of the social difficulties which abound in the area—many are in difficult economic circumstances—it would be better if children were forcibly sent to other schools all over the city so that they would have the benefit of mixing with, as it is put, their social and educational betters.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Is it not a fact that an inspector of the Department of Education recommended that it would be to the advantage of these children to move away and to have the benefit of broader horizons?

Mr. Mulley: I do not know what an inspector of the Ministry of Education may have said, but I have represented these people for 20 years and I form my own view about what is good for them and their children. In doing so I am substantially guided by the parents of the children concerned. If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself he will see that I am coming to the main reason why this school has done such tremendous work for the estate. One of the reasons for concern about the school was the wonderful record of the then headmaster, Mr. Bland, and his staff. In a very difficult area they produced a remarkable response from the children. These achievements were recognised not only on the estate and in the city but were given national coverage in the educational Press as well as being the subject of a special television programme.
Mr. Bland's methods made a great impact in developing a community spirit and atmosphere in a socially deprived


area where children were by no means the easiest to teach. It is because of this that people want to have this school in their area. The parents there have produced a petition signed by 1,500 people asking that it should remain there. This can be contrasted with objections which have come from outside the area and in some cases actually from outside the city. I pay my tribute to the parents who have worked for a long time on this project, particularly their leader, Mrs. Rita Jackson. The reason the parents are fighting is partly educational and partly to do with the problem of low incomes. Many of these people work on difficult weekly budgets, and extra fares or special clothing would be difficult to provide for if the children moved to different schools. This would be a severe financial hardship only part of which the local authority would be able to meet.
The kind of problems met with when children from such an estate are sent outside of it was put very movingly to me by a parent just before Chistmas when she said that her child was busily engaged making up little Christmas presents for the old people in the neighbourhood of the school. However, not one of those packages would go to an old person on the Wybourn Estate or anywhere in the area where the child lived. Schools encourage their own children to visit the elderly people but because there is no school in that area, an area which probably needs such voluntary service more than most, the children are encouraged to do such missions of mercy on other estates.
I reluctantly accepted that the secondary school had to close to make the new primary provision, but I feel very strongly that an area of 19,000 people, as this will be by 1981, is large enough to have a secondary school of its own. Although the estate is very old, there are new buildings, and the difficulty which we face in my part of Sheffield is that, perhaps because of playing field requirements, all the recent secondary schools have tended to be in the same area on the periphery of Sheffield. Where there is, as there is in this case, a site which will provide adequate playing fields near new housing development and the centre of the city, I should have thought that there

was an overwhelming case for building the school.
Some people believe that the site is too local. I have never understood what they meant. Apart from the economic and financial considerations, if we can minimise the amount of travelling for the children and have a school as a focus for the community, this must be an advantage. While there may be a small surplus of school places in this area, if the school is not built immediately 360 extra places will have to be found by extending another school and, in the longer term, by extending all the other schools which are grouped together in one area. It is nonsense to make large schools larger when there is a suitable site and the possibility of giving the people the school that they want.
The site of Monar Castle is an historic site, with the possibility of providing 25 acres of playing fields. I understand that it is the wish of the local education authority to follow the advice in the circular of the previous Government, which I hope will not be rescinded, to encourage the use of school playing facilities by youth clubs and other organisations where appropriate. This would give a tremendous uplift to the community. The identification of the school with the community was fostered very much by Mr. Bland in his period as headmaster of Wybourn School.
It is regrettable that a number of people approach these questions on a political basis. When I first became involved in receiving representations about the school, there was a Conservative chairman of the local education authority. I went to see him, as I have since seen the Labour chairman who succeeded him. Broadly, the reorganisation of education in the city as a whole was accepted by both parties. When I first raised the matter, the aspect of finance was important. The sum of £200,000—and special sanction was given for this to be deferred—from educational priority area funds which had been designated to the area about which I am concerned would be used to finance the extension of a eschool in another area which does not qualify on educational grounds if this school is not built.
The balance of the amount required—about £130,000, I understand—has been


allocated and there is therefore no financial difficulty about going ahead with the scheme. Although, until a final decision is taken on Section 13 objections—that is also a reason why one hopes that this can be done as soon as reasonably possible—detailed design work cannot be done, I think that preliminary design has been considered and that there is not only the possibility of an exciting design, but the great advantage of having a purpose-built comprehensive school.
This proposal initially is to have a school of 600 with a five-form entry, but with the growth of new housing in the area—it is the new housing which attracts people with families or the newly married who later have families—there is no doubt that space would be required for its extension as the school population and the school leaving age require more places to be made available.
If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) was correctly reported in the Press, he objected because it was to be a comprehensive school. Oddly enough, I should be a little surprised about that because, as I understood their arguments, some of the Conservative councillors in the city and teachers complained not because it was a comprehensive school, but because it was too small. They would be more satisfied if it were built to take 1,000 or 1,200 pupils.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: The most important issue here is priorities in finance. A certain amount of finance is available for secondary school or comprehensive development and so much is available for primary development. I hope to be able to outline that there is a genuine fear that money may be taken from the primary school building programme for the secondary school building programme. That was the reason for my objection as reported in the Press about two weeks ago.

Mr. Mulley: I was coming to that. The hon. Member may want me to rush through my speech: I assure him that there is plenty of time.
As I thought I had made clear, there is no financial problem about this school, because all the steps that need to be taken—approvals, finance, and so on—have been taken. Only at this stage does the notice appear in the Press inviting

residents to object under the Section 13 procedure, and then the only requirement for the scheme to proceed is the Secretary of State's decision on the objections which have been received. They may be from residents who object to the noise of the school in their area, but some people in Sheffield, for reasons best known to themselves, have sought to use the Section 13 procedure—I make no complaint; they are free to do so—to stir up the whole question and invoke the validity of Circular 10/70. It has, perhaps, become out of all proportion to the question of whether there is a case for a school in the area when the allocation of money for educational priorities of this kind should be the main item.
If the school is not built, alternative facilities will be required. One of the first possibilities would be an extension of a school called Beaver Hill. I understand that the teachers there are extremely disappointed, because a substantial extension of their school would mean an increase in their status and prestige, possibly even a financial advantage. One understands their attitude. While, however, teachers' organisations must be consulted on all these matters, parents and children also have a right to be heard.
If it happens to be in the interests of the neighbourhood to have a school although it may upset the professional plans of some of the teachers, that is unfortunate and there are other ways within a local education authority of providing for promotion of teachers without necessarily having to build an expensive extension to their school.
Some of my hon. Friends might criticise a comprehensive school of only 600 pupils, but it is envisaged that it would cover pupils from 12 to 16 only and that sixth form provision should be made elsewhere. I do not believe in the standardised form of comprehensive school. I do not believe that comprehensive schools must be very large and of an exact pattern. I believe that there is room for an experiment for this kind of variation and that the judgment should be left to the local education authority. We will develop new forms of secondary education only by allowing this kind of experiment. As I have already said, there may in future be a need for an extension


in the size of the school. But clearly in any sphere where resources are scarce people can always make an alternative bid to use the money. It would be a public scandal if the money specially allocated for E.P.A. areas was used elsewhere. It would be contrary to what was intended. However, a case can always be made.
I do not want to repeat the reprimand that was delivered to the hon. Member for Hallam by the editorial in the Morning Telegraph. It is not the case that Sheffield has a bad record of primary school development. Unfortunately, all over the country there are a number of slum schools that are very much overdue for replacement. It is also a fact, which I am sure the Minister will confirm, that it is only in recent years—I do not wish to make a party political point—that money has been made available to local education authorities to replace slum schools. During the whole period of the previous Conservative Government and for several years of the Labour Government the only money made available for new schools was where there was a redevelopment and a need for more places. The replacing of a school because it was a disgraceful slum school was not possible until money was provided a couple of years ago.
I know that some people in Sheffield—I deplore their motivation—have gone around suggesting that if there was not the Castle scheme people could have this, that, and the other school. People can create a great impression around Sheffield on that kind of argument. They can give away a dozen or more schools on that kind of circular argument.
The St. Catharine's Roman Catholic primary school in Burngreave in my constituency is urgently in need of replacement. I have met the parents and managers and I have been round the school. There is no doubt that it is an absolute disgrace and urgently requires replacement. Nothing can be done by way of improving or repairing it. It is clearly a case of replacement. I understand that this school is rightly at the top of the local education authority's priority list. I told the parents and the managers that I would do all that I could to get this replacement at the earliest possible date. But it was con-

ditional on the Government, of whichever party—this was prior to the election—making money continually available for this purpose. I told the parents that we should not try to cancel the Castle scheme, for which there is a need. However, I assured the parents that if the new Government made clear that money would be available for this purpose in the next financial year, perhaps some re-phasing could be done to start the rebuilding of St. Catharine's early rather than late.
Such candour may not gain votes, but I do not believe in telling one group of parents a different story from another group. I made clear that I fully supported the Castle scheme, but that I would do my best, as I had for the Castle scheme, for St. Catharine's. I did not try to do a deal and set one group of parents against another. I deplore the idea of people casting covetous eyes on a scheme which has been approved for part of my constituency and arousing hopes and expectations in almost every school in other parts of the city.
We have plenty of time left for the debate, but I wish to conclude because I do not want to take unreasonable advantage of the House. Everything is set to go. All that is required is the Minister's decision on objections under Section 13. In view of Circular 10/70 I believe that these matters should be left primarily to the decision of the local education authority. The phrase in paragraph 2 of the circular is rather wide:
The Secretary of State will expect educational considerations in general, local needs and wishes in particular and the wise use of resources to be the main principles determining the local pattern".
In this case there are the right educational considerations. There is clearly local need, and the wishes of the people who live in the area are crystal clear. They want this school, and I think that in the short-term, and certainly in the long-term, interest it is the right use of resources to go ahead with it. I am asking not for any allocation of funds, but merely for a favourable and early decision on the Section 13 objections.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give me an assurance that, when faced with problems of this kind, local education authorities can work on the basis of Circular 10/70 meaning what it says. I hope that theirs will be the paramount


view in deciding the form of organisation, and that arguments about whether the school is too small because it is comprehensive, and other such arguments, will not be brought up every time. This is the sort of thing that happens with every new plan, be it for a primary or for a secondary school. I hope that we shall not have the Section 13 procedure used to bring the whole of the argument at local level up for national decision in every case.
I know that, because of the statutory procedures to be followed, it may not be possible for me to get a clear and full answer, but I hope that the views which I have put forward will be borne in mind by the Secretary of State when she comes to determine the issue, and that in view of the urgency of getting on with the job the decision will be taken at an early date.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) has put his case for a Section 13 application for a change of plan, and it is only right that the House should know that this is an issue which has given rise to a good deal of controversy in Sheffield. I suggest that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State comes to give judgment she will need more than the wisdom of Solomon to decide what course of action to adopt. My task tonight is to deploy some of the reasons why the Under-Secretary of State—and we are pleased to see him here—should be very careful about taking the advice offered to him by the right hon. Gentleman.
I hesitate to intervene in an affair which concerns the right hon. Gentleman's constituency—

Mr. Mulley: I want to get one thing clear. This concerns my constituency, but the decision to proceed and to make the application is not mine. It is that of the local education authority. I am merely sustaining the right of Sheffield to determine its own education policy.

Mr. Osborn: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will find me disagreeing with him too much on that, but there is a controversy about the rights and wrongs of the development of the Castle Compre-

hensive School and it is right that the House should know about it.
This issue involves priorities in education expenditure—

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Mr. Eddie Griffiths (Sheffield, Brightside) rose—

Mr. Osborn: I should like to get on with my speech, but I shall, nevertheless, give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman spoke about controversy. Does he consider that the controversy is basically about education, or are he and his party turning it into a political controversy? Indeed, is it not the case that the hon. Gentleman went to Sheffield this week to be briefed by the Conservative opposition on the city council on their point of view?

Mr. Osborn: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) would be well advised to let me make my own speech. If I do not cover the points that he wants to raise he will be entitled to intervene later.
This is definitely a local issue. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park has deployed his arguments about a local issue with skill, and has put forward the point of view of parents in his constituency. This I acknowledge. But he would have gained more support from me—I am not entirely in disagreement with him on every issue—if he had put forward a case for more expenditure on new schools in Sheffield. But the new Secretary of State for Education will have to keep within a budget. I do not know the extent to which Sheffield is spending less money in running schools and providing education and in terms of capital expenditure on new schools than are the other major cities, but I understand that Sheffield is not top of the list in terms of the amount of money spent per head of population or children involved.
I intervene, first, because a petition has been sent to the Secretary of State for Education from many people involved in the issue; indeed, the Conservative deputy chairman of the Sheffield education committee will have sent a letter to the Secretary of State outlining the difficulties and disagreement with the party in power in the Sheffield City Council.


Already I have sent the Minister correspondence from other parents—including correspondence from a parent-teacher association that has written to all Sheffield Members of Parliament—connected with St. Catharine's School. I have been in touch with the people involved, and they have expressed concern about the priorities affecting even my own constituency.
This involves the Church of England development at Broomhall and the closure of primary school places in my constituency. The distortion of priorities could affect the whole school programme in Sheffield, and Sheffield citizens want an assurance that this will not happen.
The right hon. Member referred to the St. Catharine's development. It is not a questoin of being for or against the Castle Comprehensive School but, as I understand it, in a letter earlier this year the Minister's predecessor pointed out that funds for raising the school-leaving age could not be diverted to a programme of this type. The letter implied that the Castle Comprehensive School might well have to go ahead at the expense of other priorities. That was the information given to me. It would be useful if the Under-Secretary could confirm or contradict the earlier correspondence on this issue.

Mr. Mulley: I think that I can clear up that point. The major part of the cost—as I said in my speech, if the hon. Member had done me the courtesy of listening to it—comes from a previous allocation for areas of special educational need. There was a balancing sum, which was determined not by the previous Secretary of State but by the local education authority. That authority provided that from a sum to replace schools in difficult social areas part would be allocated for the Castle School. This decision was made by the local education authority, and it must be borne in mind that the Castle School is replacing a former secondary school, thereby making additional primary provision in an area of great need. In that sense, therefore, primary education has gained and secondary education has lost. It is in that sense that the Castle School comes into consideration.

Mr. Osborn: The right hon. Gentleman has taken me away from what I was

saying, but this has been debated fully in the Sheffield council chamber. The Minister should know the arguments for and against. But I have already written to the Secretary of State asking for her view on the likely expenditure in Sheffield on the priorities which she has approved. I have already asked the director of education to give me full details of the programme agreed as of now. I am still awaiting this information from both sources, but it is a matter of debate. The information should be available to all Members of Parliament for Sheffield.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it must be the local authority which determines its own priorities. This is the Conservative view also, and no doubt the Under-Secretary of State will confirm that, to a greater extent, the local authorities must determine their own needs and priorities. But, after all, the local authorities require funds from the Secretary of State. There must be some dialogue. I am convinced that there has been a dialogue between the director of education and the Ministry officials during the few months of the election period.
The right hon. Gentleman made one or two imputations about my views on comprehensive education, and I should like to make two points clear. First, I endorse the views of the Secretary of State in our major education debate last week, that it is possible, in certain circumstances for grammar schools to be run alongside comprehensives. I regret that two grammar schools have now become comprehensive in Sheffield, but this has happened. This is history now: I accept that there are no grammar schools in Sheffield and that the city is developing its secondary education on comprehensive lines.
Second, because of the nature of the ruling party on the city council, if we have to accept, as the city has accepted, that comprehensive education is the development of the future, I would be much happier if there are shortcomings in a comprehensive programme, if they were met and dealt with.
I wanted to make clear those two points—that I agree with the views of my Conservative colleagues about the education pattern for the future, but that,


because of the nature of the city council, I recognise that Sheffield is comprehensive and the debate is about the best priorities of expenditure on a comprehensive programme of secondary school development again expenditure on primary education and the other needs of the city. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) reminded me that I had been in consultation with the Conservative members of the city council. Of course I had. Surely, if I am going to speak in this debate, I should obtain their views. I have spoken to the deputy chairman of the education committee, Councillor Frank Adams, and the past chairman, Alderman Peter Jackson—

Mr. Mulley: As a matter of fact, as I understand it, there are no Conservatives holding chairmanships or deputy chairmanships in Sheffield. The custom there is for the ruling party to provide the chairmen and deputy chairmen. He may be chairman of the Conservative group, but not of the committee.

Mr. Osborn: He has an office: I understood that he was deputy chairman of the committee. He is a senior Conservative representative on that committee. But I will not split hairs with the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Mulley: I am sorry, but it is important to get the facts right, because, when an hon. Member talks about expressing the views of a deputy chairman of a committee of a local authority, he tends to suggest that that is the view of the majority of the local authorities. This is not so in this case, and, if the hon. Member will be good enough to check, I am certain that he will find that no Conservative holds office as deputy to a Labour chairman, just as Labour did not have any deputies to Conservative chairmen when the Conservatives were in power. The party in power picks the chairman and deputy. The other party may have a shadow chairman, or something of that kind.

Mr. Osborn: I have obtained the views of the Conservative representatives on the appropriate committee, and perhaps I stand corrected on their exact title—namely, shadow chairmen.
Is my hon. Friend aware that the education committee met yesterday and

that I understand from the Conservative representatives on that committee that the chairman, Councillor Peter Horton, is believed to have completely altered the draft letter replying to the Minister; that he has not accepted the draft put forward by the director of education?
This information has been given to me and I understand that there is to be a censure motion at the city council on the way in which the chairman has handled this matter. I do not know the exact details of this issue—of the rights and wrongs of it—and I draw the matter to my hon. Friend's attention only to point out that the views expressed by the majority are not shared by—

Mr. Mulley: I would like to clarify—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a debate, not a duologue.

Mr. Osborn: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, because I wish to continue my speech without interruption.
There are certain interesting aspects to be taken into account. The secondary school development in the Wybourn area is a long story, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us more information about it. One of the arguments for this school has been that there is a lack of facilities locally and that local youth clubs could benefit from using these facilities. However, there is a contrary argument; that it might be better to spend money providing facilities for clubs and not having clubs use a school as a vehicle for such facilities. This contrary argument is being deployed.
I understand that the teachers in the area are opposed to the development of a small comprehensive school in the Wybourn area on both social and educational grounds. Educationists hold the view that it would be better for children to go to school outside the area—thereby meeting children from other districts—possibly at Norfolk Park and Hurlfield. Apparently this was a recommendation put forward by an inspector of the Ministry of Education, though again the question of funds arises.
I gather that about £250,000 has been allocated to Sheffield and that some of it has already been allocated to the Beaver


Hill School. I understand that materials have been delivered but that the contract for the extension of this school has had to be cancelled. May we be given an explanation of this and its implications, including the views of the headmaster and teachers, who thought that they would be in a larger school?
Obviously, parents in the Wybourn area have objected to the extra travel and cost involved in sending their children longer distances to school. I imagine that this pressure has been on the right hon. Gentleman, who has been guided by the views of local parents. These views are bound to have been taken into account by him in raising this subject tonight.
One of the great arguments for a comprehensive policy, at any rate in the Sheffield area, has been the virtue of larger schools, say, 1,500 pupils. Thus, the building of yet another small comprehensive school of 600 places removes some of the initial argument that had been put forward in Sheffield for a comprehensive policy.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Castle site as being available. I understand that there is some difficulty about the site and that there may have to be an alteration of planning priorities in this matter. It would be useful to know what the exact planning position is.

Mr. Mulley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You indicated that I should not intervene further, so I have not done so. But I would point out to you the difficulty that an hon. Member is in when another hon. Member intervenes in matters concerning his constituency and puts a whole series of pieces of inaccurate information to the House. Apparently, I cannot intervene to correct him. I cannot have leave to speak again. I want to make it quite clear, therefore, that by my silence I am not assenting to the correctness of the information which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) is putting forward; and also to give notice that I shall in future feel free to intervene in the discussion of any education issues in his constituency as he has intervened on this issue.

Mr. Speaker: I have only suggested that interventions should be reasonably brief.

Mr. Osborn: The right hon. Gentleman gets more and more barbed as the debate goes on. I have pointed out that, quite rightly, he has put forward a case in his constituency, and I hoped that he would regard my understanding of this case as reasonable.
I come back to the question of land. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should make absolutely certain that the site is available. My information is that there is some doubt about availability of land for the school. Planning procedures may be involved.
The Minister should know that there are alternative proposals for the provision of secondary school places in this area. She should be satisfied that the construction of a small comprehensive school here is the best alternative. If she is so satisfied, however, what guarantee can we have that the project will not disturb priorities for the provision of new secondary school places elsewhere in Sheffield? Promises were made by the Conservatives in the last municipal elections, and certainly nationally at the General Election, that we would give priority to primary school places. There are priorities in Sheffield which must not be jeopardised by the development of the Castle comprehensive project whatever the rights and wrongs of it are.
I have intervened in order to assure the Under-Secretary that there are many good educational and social arguments against the Castle Comprehensive School. My hon. Friend should make himself aware of the contrary arguments, and know of the reservations that others have had about this project. I regret that it has seemed necessary to bring to the House of Commons for debate this evening a subject which should be debated in the council chamber at Sheffield. The issue is essentially a local one—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not rule himself out of order.

Mr. Osborn: I certainly do not want to rule myself out of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister will be receiving a letter setting out fully the contrary arguments to secondary school development of this type, and indicating some of Sheffield's needs. I very much hope that either my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will have time to visit


Sheffield and see the nature of the problems we are debating.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) that I in no way intend to make any observations on the case he has put forward so lucidly and clearly to the Under-Secretary in favour of the confirmation of Castle Comprehensive School.
I intervene briefly because I am very indignant that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) should have intervened in a debate on what would normally be considered a constituency matter which my right hon. Friend wished to bring to the notice of the Minister. The hon. Gentleman used the bulk of his time to promote what is a minority political view in the City of Sheffield and in this Chamber, but I believe that the normal channels available to an education authority, to political figures at local level and, indeed, to the Department, are sufficiently open without having to use these tactics in the House.
I appeal to the Under Secretary. It is invidious that this whole matter has developed into a political charade. There is danger for the educational future of children involved in this comprehensive conurbation and the primary school children at St. Catherine's and other underprivileged schools and under-privileged areas. I hope that he will look objectively at the case. I remind him of the strong case he made in the recent debate on education when he said that it is the intention of the Government to honour and respect the local democracy of local authorities. I assure him that rightly or wrongly, this scheme of the Castle Comprehensive School is needed in the view of the locally-elected democratic Labour council. I hope he will think twice before interfering even though he has plenty of prodding from the minority Conservative body in Sheffield.
There is a great deal of neglect of primary schools in my constituency. In the Gracious Speech the Government strongly asserted that they want to improve standards and facilities of primary education. This conflict in Sheffield has got out of all proportion. It is in the hands of the hon. Gentleman and the

Government to settle it by releasing a little more money so that these primary schools, with St. Catherine's at the top of the list, can be helped in the very near future. If he takes that course he will raise education out of the political cauldron and possibly satisfy all parties which feel aggrieved.

9.32 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): At the start of his speech the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) was kind enough to make a courteous reference to my having been on duty late last night in a cause which had the heart of the whole House. I was very much obliged for that courteous reference and I am glad that there is such great interest in education in this House. Tomorrow night the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends are to raise another important matter dealing with education. As the only Under-Secretary to the Department in this House, I shall be happy to be on duty.
It is part of my duty to the House to reply to this debate. My task is made easier because the right hon. Gentleman also began his speech by announcing that he did not expect a decision from me tonight. It is always so very much more agreeable to be able to start by agreeing with what an hon. Member has said. I can, therefore, confirm that I am not going to make an announcement of a decision tonight. The reason, of course, is a very proper and good one. The proposal, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is now before my right hon. Friend under Section 13 of the Education Act, 1944. The proposal has been the subject of objections, and my right hon. Friend is in a quasi-judicial capacity at this precise moment. It would clearly be discourteous to Sheffield and those who express views on both sides of this controversy if I were in a casual way to announce a decision on the matter tonight.
As was explained to us very helpfully by the right hon. Gentleman, the background to this matter has a long and complicated history. It might be helpful if I put on record that the Sheffield local education authority's plans for the reorganisation of secondary education in the city were approved by the then


Secretary of State in November, 1968. It provided for a system of 5–8 first schools, 8–12 middle schools and 12–16 and 12–18 upper schools, the 12–16 schools being grouped with 12–18 schools which would provide sixth form facilities for the group. This was a point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn).
The authority's formal proposals under Section 13 for the implementation of this scheme as from September, 1969, were approved by the then Secretary of State in July of that year. Under these proposals the existing secondary modern school in Wybourn was closed to allow the premises to be used as a middle school. Secondary pupils from Wybourn began in September, 1969, to attend other comprehensive schools outside the immediate Wybourn area, and it was the authority's original intention as the right hon. Gentleman explained, that this would be a permanent arrangement.
As has been made clear to us, subsequently, after representations by parents living in the Wybourn area, the local education authority reconsidered this part of its scheme and accepted the parents' argument that Wybourn should have its own comprehensive school. Accordingly, in March last it submitted to the Department a proposal under Section 13 for the establishment of a new 5-form entry comprehensive school to be known as the Castle Comprehensive School, in the Wybourn area. This represented a modification of the proposals previously approved. The proposed new school would be provided in place of the extensions to another comprehensive school—Beaver Hill School—envisaged in the authority's original plans.
When a local education authority makes a proposal to establish a new school, the Act requires that it publishes Press and poster notices of its intention and allows a period of two months within which objections may be made to my right hon. Friend. The Sheffield authority duly published notices of its proposal to establish a new comprehensive school at Wybourn, and a number of objections—I think that this has not been objections have been received.
It is fair to mention that one of the mentioned so far—comes from the Sheffield Teachers Association. I know

that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned teachers. I make this point not in any way to give weight one way or the other but to show that some of the objections received were not of the type of which any Secretary of State would take no cognisance.
The Department has asked the local education authority for its comments on the points raised by the objectors. This is following the ordinary statutory procedures.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman says that this is a fairly substantial objection. In the circular saying that there was local freedom to develop secondary education on whatever lines a local authority chooses, did not his Government choose not to take any notice of the strong representation by the N.U.T. on this point?

Mr. van Straubenzee: The answer to that question is that nothing in that circular changes the law. Indeed, last week my right hon. Friend made that point extremely clear. We should not be having this debate if the circular had altered the law. I am saying no more than that under that law which remains and which is an essential part of my right hon. Friend's policy, if a new school is to be established certain procedures have to be followed.
I was doing no more than pointing out that certain objections have been received, but wishing to shade the matter in this way—helpfully, I hope—I would add this comment. All of us realise, in our representative capacities, that there are people who will object, perhaps wilfully, to almost anything, and we are, shall I say, used to receiving such objections in our own postbag and giving them the weight which, over the years, we have felt it appropriate to give them. Here, on the other hand, one objection has come from the Sheffield Teachers Association, which. I imagine, both the hon. Gentleman and I would regard as not a body to be ignored. I make no more point than that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam asked me a number of questions on detailed points. I hope that he will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not answer them, for this reason. The position which we have now reached, as I have explained, places my right hon.


Friend in a quasi-judicial position, and if I were to attempt to answer the points raised by my hon. Friend I might inadvertently prejudice her dispassionate consideration of the matter. My hon. Friend was kind enough to say—a little alarmingly, I thought—that my right hon. Friend would need more than the wisdom of Solomon. Happily, I am able to say that that is precisely what she possesses, for Solomon was a mere man. There will, therefore, be no difficulty in that regard.
We have yet to receive the local authority's comments on the points raised by the objectors. My information is that they will not come to my right hon. Friend's Department until after meetings which are to take place at the beginning of September. I think that my hon. Friend will accept that it would not be proper for me, therefore, to comment on whatever internal arrangements there may be within the city council. When those comments are received, it will be for my right hon. Friend most carefully to consider the objections and the authority's comments on them, together with, if I may say so, the points so cogently made by the right hon. Gentleman, and, as he will, I know, accept, the points made, and the point of view represented by, my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam.
Since this matter has its ramifications within the whole city, although I do not wish to intervene on this occasion in the white heat of internal dissension within the city, I think it perfectly proper for any hon. Member who has the privilege of representing any part of Sheffield to express a view upon the matter.

Mr. Mulley: I was not concerned to protest against the views expressed by the hon. Member for Hallam. Obviously, he is entitled to express them, and, no doubt, they will be taken into account by the Minister when she makes her decision. I was objecting to inaccurate information which the hon. Gentleman was putting to the House. Understandably, he is not so intimately informed, not having had almost day-to-day contact with the parents, and so on. I mention, for example, the doubt about land being available. I understand that there are two sites to choose from, and, further, that there is no question of planning diffi-

culties, Sheffield being its own planning authority. I hope that the Minister will check the points made before taking neat what the hon. Member for Hallam says.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Those hon. Members who have not been in the House for as long as the right hon. Gentleman will greatly respect the skill with which he got in his debating point. I merely say that all these are matters which must be taken into account.
I can give the hon. Member for Brightside the definite assurance that my right hon. Friend will look at the matter objectively when she comes to make a decision, and the political complexion of the Sheffield City Council at the time will not be a factor entering her consideration.
I hope therefore that with the assurances I have given showing the timetable, which perfectly reasonably—I make no criticism of this—at present rests with the City of Sheffield, and showing that my right hon. Friend is therefore following the judicial procedures, I shall have discharged my duty to answer the debate very properly raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

Orders of the Day — CAMMELL LAIRD

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Dell: I am very grateful that I have, perhaps somewhat unexpectedly, caught your eye this evening, Mr. Speaker, to raise a matter of considerable importance to my constituents.
I am also very grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence and his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology for being present. The Under-Secretary of State, who I understand is to reply, may take the view that the matters which I am about to raise are matters of which he has received insufficient notice, and that therefore he cannot give me any firm assurances upon them this evening. I would not find that argument too easily acceptable, on the ground that I am raising not matters suddenly brought before the House or Ministers but pledges made to my constituents—in particular, the employees of Cammell Laird, one of the main employers in my constituency—by


the Conservative candidate in the General Election with, I am told, the knowledge and approval of the Shadow Cabinet. These pledges were made two days before the General Election, and were made clearly with the intention of influencing the result. Although they did not have that effect in my constituency they may have had an effect in the neighbouring, rather more marginal, constituency of Bebington. It is sometimes thought that all those who work at Cammell Laird's live in my constituency, but my estimate is that no more than a third do so. Large numbers of them live in neighbouring constituencies, including the constituency of Bebington.
It was stated that the pledges to which I shall refer were made on behalf of the shadow Cabinet, with its knowledge and approval. I have no knowledge of how its approval was obtained. All I know is that that claim was made and published in the local Press before the election. I can only assume that in the course of preparing the statement to which I shall refer the Conservative candidate in Birkenhead had consultation at the very least with those members of the then shadow Cabinet who appeared to be most relevant to the issues raised in his circular. One was the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), then shadow Minister of Technology, and the other was the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who was the shadow Secretary of State for Defence and is now the Minister of Technology. I have no personal knowledge that either was consulted, but they seem to be the people who may have been consulted on the matter before the circular was issued.
I am saying that it was a circular issued with the knowledge and approval of the shadow Cabinet, or at least asserted to be so. Yet I was surprised to find during Question Time yesterday that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology had no knowledge of it. I put to him a supplementary question in which I asked:
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, during the election campaign, specific pledges were made to Cammell Laird workers and were stated to have been made on behalf of the then Shadow Cabinet? Is the hon. Gentleman aware what those pledges were, and does he intend to implement them?

He replied:
I am not aware what those pledges were."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1132.]
Later during Question Time I had another opportunity to put the point to him, and he kindly said that he would make inquiries to find out what the pledges were. This if anything inspired me with a sense of urgency to put the matter before him. I am prepared to provide both Ministers with copies of the circular if they have so far been unable to obtain one.
I wish to refer not to all the pledges made in this document, but to certain of them. Those which I mention come mainly within the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence, although one is within the responsibility of the Ministry of Technology, and that is why I am particularly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being present. Item 5 of the Circular says:
The Cammell Laird Settlement will stand exactly in accordance with the agreement made between the Government, the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, and Cammell Lairds.
That, of course, is a reference to the agreement made by my right hon. Friend the then Paymaster-General before the election.
It was yesterday confirmed in the House categorically that that settlement would stand and I therefore have no complaint about that assurance. I have only two questions about the assurances which I was given in that respect. One is whether it is intended that the 50 per cent. share ownership now in the hands of the Public Trustee will be maintained in public ownership in the hands of the Public Trustee, or whether the Government have any intention of selling the half share which they now own. The other question is whether it is intended to bring legislation on the matter before the House this Session.
I go on to other pledges made in the document. The first sentence of item 7 says:
The Conservative Party will restore the building programme of hunter killer submarines to their original level; i.e. reverse the cuts made by the Socialists.
There is no dubiety about that categorical statement. It is a pledge. I therefore


put a question to the Minister of State for Defence:
Mr. Dell asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has to expand the building programme of Hunter/Killer submarines.
The answer was:
Any consideration of this subject would form part of wider studies of future defence policy which are now in progress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 142.]
The House will agree that that is far from the categorical statement made in the circular issued to employees of Cammell Laird.
The second sentence in item 7 of the Circular said:
This means that this additional work must come to Cammell Lairds as there is no other shipyard in Britain equipped to do it, with the exception of Vickers, who already have the existing business.
I asked the Minister a question about this, too:
Mr. Dell asked the Minister of State for Defence when he proposes to allocate an order for the construction of a hunter/killer submarine to Cammell Laird (Shipbuilders and Engineers) Limited.
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
A contract for a hunter/killer submarine was let to Vickers (Barrow) on 20th May, 1970. There are no further orders in prospect in the near future".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 12.]
The fact that there are no further orders in prospect for the near future does not mean that further orders will not be given to Cammell Laird. What I want is an assurance that in fact the categorical statements in the circular issued on behalf of the then shadow Cabinet will be fulfilled and that additional work in the construction of hunter/killer submarines will go to Cammell Laird.
I turn now to item 9 of this circular which reads:
The Conservative Party pledges itself also to restore the naval construction programme, generally, to its previous level. This should result in orders for surface vessels in Cammell Lairds.
I ask the House to note the difference between the words in the previous point when it said "must come" and the words here "should result". Obviously this is less categoric. Here we come into such things as tendering and competitiveness in which one would expect the Ministry of Defence to be interested. I note this and I hope that this firm will

be given equal opportunities for tendering and that it will benefit from orders within the general naval construction programme.
The first sentence of item 10 of this 11-point programme reads:
The Conservative Party believes that for reasons of national security the naval shipbuilding capacity, both nuclear and conventional, at Cammell Lairds must be preserved, and the only way to do this is to keep it working.
Very well, once more the test is whether orders are placed with Cammell Laird. Certainly there is here an assurance that orders will be placed with Cammell Laird because it is necessary, according to this document, to keep Cammell Laird available for naval shipbuilding. The second sentence of that item reads:
The Conservative Party is also determined to retain facilities at Cammell Laird for the refitting of nuclear submarines and will keep open the option to have some of this work carried out at the yard as and when necessary.
I therefore put down a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State for Defence, answered at column 105 of 10th July. It read:
Mr. Dell asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has to use Cammell Laird, Birkenhead, for the refitting of nuclear submarines."—
The reply was:
We have no plans for refitting nuclear submarines outside the Royal Dockyards."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 105.]
The Minister will appreciate that this last, point, like the others, is of crucial importance to the people working at Cammell Laird. Many of them have felt that even if the construction of hunter/killer submarines is taken away they should nevertheless have the right to refit nuclear submarines. The previous Government made it clear that the refitting of nuclear submarines would take place within the Royal Dockyards. This decision was contested during the General Election campaign and in the circular, in the name of the Shadow Cabinet. Here is a categoric statement, but in replying I have the statement that there is no change in policy.
These are the commitments made on behalf of the shadow Cabinet, or said to have been made.
It is up to the hon. Gentleman, if he wishes, to deny that they were made on behalf of the shadow Cabinet, but the electorate of Birkenhead was told that they were made on behalf of the shadow Cabinet and I am sure that they believed it. I believe that constituents in neighbouring areas believed that too. It is clear from the Answers I have been given in this House that, whatever the intentions of this Government after they have given consideration to their policy, no such clear-cut statement should have been made to the electorate of Birkenhead during the election, because Ministers are not able to come to the Box and assert in categoric terms that they will live by those commitments. In reply to Questions I have tabled I have been told either that there are no plans or that such matters are under consideration. If that is the case no such categoric statement should have been made to the electorate of Birkenhead during the General Election and I would submit that it is a scandal that it was done, whether on behalf of the shadow Cabinet or not. These commitments were made. The Government pride themselves on their honesty, and, commitments having been made in their name, it is a matter of some concern to me as the representative of Birkenhead that those commitments—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

Mr. Dell: I should have thought that it was a matter of some importance to the Government, to myself as the representative of Birkenhead, to my constituents and to all employees of Cammell Laird that these commitments should be lived up to. They were stated to have been entered into on behalf of the shadow Cabinet. Will they be lived up to?

10.1 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kirk): The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) said at the beginning of his speech that I might plead that I had had insufficient

notice of the precise points which he intended to raise. I would not hide behind that. However, this is the first time that I have been informed that any undertakings were given by anybody on this matter. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology tells me that the first time that he heard about it was when the right hon. Gentleman raised the matter at Question Time yesterday. If the right hon. Gentleman was interested in getting a reply to his allegations rather than just airing them again, he would have been wiser to have waited a little longer than 24 hours before rushing into the charge.
Yesterday my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman:
On the latter point"—
that was, the point of these allegations—
I shall certainly make the inquiries the hon. Gentleman suggests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1146.]
Without giving my hon. Friend or any other member of the Government time to make the inquiries, the right hon. Gentleman came to the House tonight, at about three hours' notice, and repeated his allegations. This is the first time that I have heard the names of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services or my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology mentioned in connection with this matter.
I have made urgent inquiries since the right hon. Gentleman began to speak. Neither of my right hon. Friends, neither of whom was given any warning by the right hon. Gentleman that he was to be attacked, is contactable this evening. Therefore, I do not know—and I say so frankly—whether the circular to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, which I have not seen, and neither has any other member of the Government as far as I know, had the authority of either of my right hon. Friends as mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman or of the shadow Cabinet as a whole.
The right hon. Gentleman has been less than responsible in the way in which he has raised this matter. I should like to go on to deal—

Mr. Dell: I should like to clear up one point. I contacted the private office of the Minister of Technology to inform him


that I would be speaking on this subject tonight.

Mr. Kirk: My information is that my right hon. Friend was not informed that an attack was to be made upon him, and neither, as far as I know, was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. If such an attack was to be made, they should both have been informed.
I come to the factual points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, a review of defence matters is now taking place within the Ministry of Defence to carry out the undertaking which the Conservative Party gave in the election to deploy our defence forces rather differently from the way proposed by the Labour Party when it was in government. Obviously, the nuclear submarine programme is affected by this, as are a very large number of other parts of the shipbuilding programme. We have not completed that review, and it is not possible for me to give any undertaking about the rate of building nuclear submarines.
What I can say to the right hon. Gentleman, however, is that even if we were to restore the rate of building hunter/killer submarines to that which obtained before the previous Government cut it in 1968, it would not bring any extra work to Cammell Laird. It was made plain by my predecessor in the debate on the Navy Estimates on 10th March, 1969—and I refer to c. 1113 of HANSARD of that date—that Vickers, of Barrow, were the lead firm for the building of nuclear submarines, and that Cammell Laird was informed as early as February, 1968, that there were no further plans to give it any share of this work. Indeed, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) went so far as to say:
It is wrong, therefore, to suggest that Cammell Laird's were not given the maximum warning of the decision. As the work on nuclear submarines is likely to continue until about the end of 1970, the firm as been given nearly three years in which to find other work, and it has been assured that it will be given every opportunity to tender for other naval work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 1113.]
That was the position adopted by the previous Administration. It is still the position of the Ministry of Defence today.
Vickers is our main contractor and once the building of the present

hunter/killer submarine which is proceeding at Cammell Laird's is completed, which, I understand, is likely to be next spring, we have no plans to place any further orders for nuclear submarines with Cammell Laird. As for surface vessels, of course Cammell Laird is in a position to tender in the same way as any other shipbuilding firm in the country. We have not yet fixed precisely what the naval shipbuilding programme is likely to be. As soon as we have fixed that—we have two particular ships in mind, the type 42 destroyer and the new cruisers—it will be open to Cammell Laird to tender for them in the same way as anybody else.
I am, however, informed by my hon. Friend that plenty of work is available in the civil shipbuilding area and that it should certainly be possible for Cammell Laird, now that it has been put on its feet again and now that my hon. Friend has given the very clear undertaking which he gave in the House yesterday in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), that we do not intend in any way to disturb the settlement made by the previous Government, to have a fair share of the ordinary commercial shipbuilding programme.
A further point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, both in Questions and in his speech tonight, is the refitting of the existing submarines. Here there are considerable problems. For one thing, I am informed that Cammell Laird is not equipped to refit nuclear submarines and that to do so would involve the building of an extra dock. Even if that were done, it was the firm policy of the previous Administration, which is being maintained by the present Administration, that refitting of nuclear submarines shall proceed in the Royal Dockyards and not in commercial firms.
At present, only two refits are in operation—H.M.S. "Resolution", which is being refitted at Rosyth, and H.M.S. "Valiant", a hunter-killer submarine, which is being refitted at Chatham. We have no intention of taking work away from Her Majesty's Dockyards and putting it to commercial firms, particularly work of the sensitivity, in every sense of the word, of the refitting of both the Polaris and the hunter-killer submarines.
The position, therefore, as I have outlined it on the specific points raised by the right hon. Member, leaving aside his allegations against my right hon. Friends, is that we have no plans to place any orders for submarine building with Cammell Laird, that Cammell Laird is entitled to tender in the same way as any other shipbuilding firm for surface ships for the Navy and that it has wide opportunities for commercial shipbuilding in the country as a whole. Its debts have been paid off. I understand that the refitting side now belongs to the shipbuilding repair yard, which is no longer connected with the main yard but has been hived off, and that it is in a strong position to undertake commercial operations.
It would be wrong for me, as the Minister responsible for the Navy, not to end without paying tribute to the work which Cammell Laird has done for the Navy in the past and, we hope, will do for the Navy in the future. That cannot, however, entitle it to preferential treatment. The Government believe that now that Cammell Laird has been put on a firm economic footing again, it is up to it to compete in the market place in the same way as any other shipbuilding firm.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I hesitate to take part in what might be regarded as a Liverpool debate, but as the representative of many of those who work at Rosyth I have a certain interest in nuclear submarines. I also have a general interest, as is known to the Department, in this general subject.
First, it was unfair of the Minister to accuse my right hon. Friend of taking advantage and giving insufficient notice. We all know that it is difficult to get parliamentary time. Therefore, if a debate collapses through the mismanagement of the party organisation of the Leader of the House and those who work for him—I should not care to pursue that subject—then it is right to take advantage to raise these subjects.
I regret that hon. Gentlemen opposite have not had copies of the document given to me earlier today by my right hon. Friend before it was learned that he would get an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Dell: I am prepared to give hon. Gentlemen opposite copies of this document. On the other hand, this document was issued on behalf of the then shadow Cabinet. Why should I supply hon. Gentlemen opposite with a document issued on behalf of what was then their shadow Cabinet? Nevertheless, I will do so.

Mr. Dalyell: I believe in courtesy on these occasions. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will have an opportunity of going through the document to which I propose to refer.
I take the Minister's last point first. He revealed that Cammell Laird was apparently not equipped to do this work on nuclear submarines.

Mr. Kirk: I was referring specifically to refitting, not to building.

Mr. Dalyell: I am on that point. I should have made it clear.
Item 10 reads:
The Conservative Party believes that, for reasons of national security, the Naval shipbuilding capacity, both nuclear and conventional, at Cammell Laird, must be preserved, and the only way to do this is to keep it working. The Conservative Party is also determined to retain facilities at Cammell Laird for the refitting of nuclear submarines and will keep open the option to have some of this work carried out at the yard as and when necessary.
I hold that if the Conservative Party is to make such statements it should at least take the trouble to discover whether Cammell Laird had the capacity to do refitting. Before issuing such documents to many thousands of electors, which I imagine happened in the constituency of my right hon. Friend and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) and others, it should have taken the trouble to find out whether it was technically possible. My complaint is not only that it brings the Conservative Party into disrepute, but that it also brings politicians in general into disrepute with the technical world to issue ridiculous statements which, by definition, are untrue. I think that there should be an investigation into how this statement was made, what elementary inquiries were made of Cammell Laird before it was printed, and how, indeed, it crept into election literature.
We heard in the debate that, even if the level of nuclear submarine work was restored to what it was before my right hon. and hon. Friends came to power in 1964, there would still be no work. This is very odd in view of Item 9, which reads:
The Conservative Party pledges itself also to restore the Naval construction programme generally to its previous level. This should result in orders for surface vessels for Cammell Laird.
Where are these surface vessels to come from?
This is combined with Item 7:
The Conservative Party will restore the building programme of Hunter-killer submarines to their original level; i.e. reverse the cuts made by the Socialists. This means that this additional work must come to Cammell Laird as there is no other shipyard in Britain equipped to do it, with the exception of Vickers who already have the existing business.
My interpretation—and I shall give way to the Minister if I turn out to be wrong—is that this is exactly the opposite to what has been said in a Ministerial reply. Is this so or not? I am bound to conclude, either that the Department is badly advising its political masters—which I very much doubt—or the issue of this document—this is the only alternative—was totally frivolous.
As there is another quarter of an hour to go, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology will have an opportunity to reply. It may be that my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) and Liverpool, Toxteth, whose constituents are directly concerned will want to have their say, and it is my view that a Scot, be he interested in this subject or not, should give way to his Lancashire colleagues.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) suggested that the issue of this document, to which a good deal of reference has been made in this debate, may have been frivolous. As a Merseyside Member I suggest that exactly the opposite is the case. It was a serious document, put out at a serious time by people in that area who purported to be responsible people. The contents of the document were meant to be taken seriously, and, indeed, were

taken seriously, and the Minister in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) has done a service to the House, to Merseyside, and to the shipbuilding industry generally in putting in one clear statement exactly what are the intentions of the Government as regards Cammell Laird and the shipbuilding programme, and particularly the naval programme.
What the Minister said tonight is in direct opposition to almost everything that the Conservative Party has been saying on Merseyside, not just over the past six weeks, but the past three months. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue), who unfortunately is rather silent tonight because of his duties to the Government, is no stranger to the campaign which has been waged on Merseyside since the beginning of January in connection with Cammell Laird. These things not only were heard locally in Lancashire, Cheshire and Merseyside, but the effects of them have been known, heard and recorded in many other areas. There can be few Members who were in the previous Parliament who can plead ignorance of this and say that they have no knowledge of the background to the campaign, and I think that my hon. Friend, in bringing this issue forward tonight, deserves the fullest praise, both of his constituents, and of Merseyside, rather than criticism, because he of all people, due to his ministerial background, was almost gagged and silent and yet he was subjected to criticism by uninformed people outside the House during the election on the issue of what help had been given or was to come for Cammell Laird.
We know that since January there has been a request for money. That was supported in many strange ways. The request for £11 million, almost without strings, was supported by Merseyside Members on the Conservative benches who in previous months had opposed every way of making these funds available.
Then there was the strange manoeuvring of Conservative candidates and party officials over on the other side of the water which spread dismay and confusion—the yard was going to waste; it was not going to operate; it had to have nuclear submarines to keep it going; it had to have naval ships to keep it going, and so on. There was a clear


pledge from the Conservative Party, from the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) all the way down to junior Members in that part of the world, that they would support Cammell Laird by giving it naval refits, submarine work and work for aircraft carriers.
There is no shadow of doubt what the campaign was all about, and whether the documents that were put out were authentic. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were fully aware of them. I do not believe that Conservative Members in that area were unaware of what was being said in their name time and time again. It was a most shabby campaign effective as it turned out, but the result will go through Cammell Laird to other shipbuilding yards.
It may be necessary from time to time to support a private enterprise yard with Government money, but let it be noted that this is taxpayers' money which must be properly taken care of. Cammell Laird is a private yard building, in the main, merchant ships. This is its rôle, and it can do it extremely well if it is properly managed. If we are to go into the future, we have to get out of the way how this mish-mash arrived, and how this deliberate deception was used for political purposes.
It is a very sad episode in the saga of a great yard. I hope that we can clear it out of the way—not tonight, because a great deal more must be said. This matter affects regional development, Government investment in industry, and other things. Because of the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and the reply of the Minister, some light has been thrown on the matter and some honest answers have been given to questions that we from Merseyside have been asking for a long time.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: I shall limit my remarks to a brief intervention. I feel sorry for the hon. Members at the Dispatch Box. To be confronted with a document like this, of which they have no knowledge, is very disconcerting. They have my deep sympathy. But what rather appals me is that after 24 hours it has not been possible for any of the Departments to find out whether this is true or false.
I respect the honesty of the hon. Member who replied tonight. He clearly knows what the programme is, and it is something completely different from what is contained in the document. Merseyside has had a difficult time for many years. Despite the Labour Government's efforts to do things for Merseyside there has been a great deal of unemployment, not least in the shipbuilding industry, culminating in the unfortunate events which almost brought the closure of the yard. For 20,000 people whose employment is in this yard this was a despicable trick for anybody to play. I level no charge at the Tory Party head office. I would not like to think that any head office had anything to do with a document like this. But somebody is responsible, and I hope that the hon. Members opposite will find out who it is.
My hon. Friend has said that documents like this bring politicians into disrepute. It does not need any words from me to emphasise that. One of the main criticisms expressed during the past election campaign was that it seemed that a Dutch auction was going on as to who could offer the most. It is a terrible thing when politics are brought to this level. I do not say that hon. Members opposite have had anything to do with these pledges, but for 20,000 people whose jobs depend on naval construction, and who have been through very difficult times, to be promised, after the election, things that are well outside the scope of any Government to carry out is more than despicable. I cannot find words to express my feelings.
I know from personal experience that this document had a tremendous effect on Merseyside. One of my greatest regrets is that a friend in the neighbouring constituency of Bebington is not here today, and I am certain that that is because of this document. I have the greatest respect for the hon. Member who has answered the questions raised. If Conservative head office did not know about this document it is difficult for hon. Members opposite to answer my hon. Friend's point, but I hope that for the sake not only of their party but of politicians in general some statement will be made about the document put out on Merseyside, which undoubtedly had a tremendous influence on the General Election.

10.24 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I rise briefly not only because several remarks have been addressed to me but also because it is right for me to comment on the last three speeches made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw). The first time I heard of this so-called pledge was when the right hon. Gentleman raised it at Question Time yesterday. The full resources of the Library of the House, the Ministry of which I have the honour to be Parliamentary Secretary and the research department of the Conservative Party were put into action to trace the pledge to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. No Press cuttings could be found. I had wrongly assumed that the right hon. Gentleman was referring to Press cuttings. The right hon. Gentleman

did not inform us of the nature of this document.
The first time that it came into the hands of the Government was at 10.10 p.m. tonight, when it was passed across the Table by the hon. Member for Toxteth. So I hope that the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will forgive me if I make no comment when it is obviously impossible to make comment on a document of this sort without having studied it and found out its origins. It is only fair to say to the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have raised this matter that it will be investigated and that, in due course, an answer will be given about how it arose and what will be done about it. I do not believe that any of the hon. Gentlemen will expect me to comment at this stage and at such short notice, but I have undertaken that the whole matter will be looked into.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.